“New Research Suggests [Fluoridating Water] Is Dramatically Misguided”

To Protect Its Nuclear Weapons Program, Government Hired Top Propagandist to Create the Myth that Fluoride Is “Safe and Effective”

Preface: One of our pet peeves is when erroneous groupthink persists even in the face of contradictory evidence.

As shown below, water fluoridation is based on very shaky science.  And yet – despite the science – the big dental associations in the U.S. and other countries continue to push it as safe and effective.

The Guardian reported last week:

Health experts are calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation, claiming that the benefits of such schemes, as opposed to those of topical fluoride (directly applied to the teeth), are unproved.


Stephen Peckham, director and professor of health policy at Kent University’s centre for health service studies, said: “Water fluoridation was implemented before statistics had been compiled on its safety or effectiveness. It was the only cannon shot they had in their armoury. It gets rolled out, becomes – in England – policy and then you look for evidence to support it.

“The fat debate [whereby fat used to be the big enemy in food before that was revised] is an example of evidence getting built up to support a theory. It’s a dental health policy that’s got up a head of steam and people have been reluctant to see it criticised.

You can’t really confidently say that water fluoridation is either safe or effective.

Newsweek reported last June:

You might think, then, that fluoridated water’s efficacy as a cavity preventer would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But new research suggests that assumption is dramatically misguided; while using fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be good for oral health, consuming fluoridated water may have no positive impact.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.

The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975.

The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either.

The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).

“From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says. (“Tooth decay,” “cavities” and “caries” all mean the same thing: breakdown of enamel by mouth-dwelling microbes.)

“Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.” Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review. The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed.”

“There’s really hardly any evidence” the practice works, Sheldon adds. “And if anything there may be some evidence the other way.” One 2001 study covered in the Cochrane review of two neighboring British Columbia communities found that when fluoridation was stopped in one city, cavity prevalence actually went down slightly amongst schoolchildren, while cavity rates in the fluoridated community remained stable.

Overall the review suggests that stopping fluoridation would be unlikely to increase the risk of tooth decay, says Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, which does human health risk assessments of environmental contaminants.

“The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University.

The scientists also couldn’t find enough evidence to support the oft-repeated notion that fluoridation reduces dental health disparities among different socioeconomic groups, which the CDC and others use as a rationale for fluoridating water.

“The fact that there is insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces social inequalities in dental health is troublesome given that this is often cited as a reason for fluoridating water,” say Christine Till and Ashley Malin, researchers at Toronto’s York University.

Studies that attest to the effectiveness of fluoridation were generally done before the widespread usage of fluoride-containing dental products like rinses and toothpastes in the 1970s and later, according to the recent Cochrane study. So while it may have once made sense to add fluoride to water, it no longer appears to be necessary or useful, Thiessen says.

It has also become clear in the last 15 years that fluoride primarily acts topically, according to the CDC. It reacts with the surface of the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to acids excreted by bacteria. Thus, there’s no good reason to swallow fluoride and subject every tissue of your body to it, Thiessen says.

Another 2009 review by the Cochrane group clearly shows that fluoride toothpaste prevents cavities, serving as a useful counterpoint to fluoridation’s uncertain benefits.


“I couldn’t believe the low quality of the research” on fluoridation, Sheldon says.


Cavity rates have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.


Sheldon says that if fluoridation were to be submitted anew for approval today, “nobody would even think about it” due to the shoddy evidence of effectiveness and obvious downside of fluorosis.


The CDC and others “are somehow suspending disbelief,” Sheldon says. They are “all in the mindset that this is a really good thing, and just not accepting that they might be wrong.” Sheldon and others suggest pro-fluoridation beliefs are entrenched and will not easily change, despite the poor data quality and lack of evidence from the past 40 years.

Indeed, an overwhelming number of scientific studies conclude that cavity levels are falling worldwide … even in countries which don’t fluoridate water.

World Health Organization Data (2004)
Tooth Decay Trends (12 year olds) in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries:

who dmft An Overwhelming Number of Scientific Studies Conclude That Cavity Levels are Falling Worldwide ... Even In Countries Which Dont Fluoridate Water

And the scientific literature shows that – when fluoridation of water supplies is stopped – cavities do not increase (but may in some cases actually decrease). See this, this, this, this, this and this.

A couple of weeks ago, the British Medical Journal reported that Americans lose a lot more of their teeth than the Brits … even though the U.S. fluoridates a lot more of its water than the UK.

Fluoridating may water also cause reduction in IQ, depression and a variety of other illnesses.

The Guardian notes:

Critics cite studies claiming to have identified a number of possible negative associations of fluoridation, including bone cancer in boys, bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, hip fractures and lower IQ in children.

Newsweek reports:

A growing number of studies have suggested … that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk of impaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid.

But how did the myth that water fluoridation is effective and safe get started in the first place?

The government allegedly ordered Manhattan Project scientists to whitewash the toxicity of flouride (flouride is a byproduct in the production of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium). As Project Censored noted in 1999:

Recently declassified government documents have shed new light on the decades-old debate over the fluoridation of drinking water, and have added to a growing body of scientific evidence concerning the health effects of fluoride. Much of the original evidence about fluoride, which suggested it was safe for human consumption in low doses, was actually generated by “Manhattan Project” scientists in the 1940s. As it turns out, these officials were ordered by government powers to provide information that would be “useful in litigation” and that would obfuscate its improper handling and disposal. The once top-secret documents, say the authors, reveal that vast quantities of fluoride, one of the most toxic substances known, were required for the production of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. As a result, fluoride soon became the leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.

Studies commissioned after chemical mishaps by the medical division of the “Manhattan Project” document highly controversial findings. For instance, toxic accidents in the vicinity of fluoride-producing facilities like the one near Lower Penns Neck, New Jersey, left crops poisoned or blighted, and humans and livestock sick. Symptoms noted in the findings included extreme joint stiffness, uncontrollable vomiting and diarrhea, severe headaches, and death. These and other facts from the secret documents directly contradict the findings concurrently published in scientific journals which praised the positive effects of fluoride.

Regional environmental fluoride releases in the northeast United States also resulted in several legal suits against the government by farmers after the end of World War II, according to Griffiths and Bryson. Military and public health officials feared legal victories would snowball, opening the door to further suits which might have kept the bomb program from continuing to use fluoride. With the Cold War underway, the New Jersey lawsuits proved to be a roadblock to America’s already full-scale production of atomic weapons. Officials were subsequently ordered to protect the interests of the government.

After the war, … the dissemination of misinformation continued.

And Edward Bernays – the father of modern propaganda techniques – may have been the mastermind behind the “safe and effective” myth.

Austrian economist Murray Rothbard wrote in 1993:

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. [Ewing was the chief counsel for Alcoa aluminum company, and fluoride is a byproduct of aluminum production.] For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the “father of public relations.” Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called “The Original Spin Doctor” in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator’s 100th birthday in late 1991.


As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation “in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.” (Bette Hileman, “Fluoridation of Water,” Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the “mechanism which controls the public mind,” which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that “Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…” And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, “either with or without their conscious cooperation,” will “automatically influence” the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that “it is wholesome to eat bacon.” For, Bernays added, he “knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians.” (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add “dentists” to the equation, and substitute “fluoride” for “bacon,” and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

And award-winning BBC producer and investigative journalist Christopher Bryson writes:

[Bernays] operated from the same office building, One Wall Street, where the Alcoa lawyer Oscar Ewing had also worked. In 1950 Ewing had been the top government official to sign off on the endorsement of water fluoridation, as Federal Security Administrator in charge of the US Public Health Service.

“Do you recall working with Oscar Ewing on fluoridation?” I asked Bernays.

“Yes,” he replied.


Bernays’s personal papers detail his involvement in one of the nation’s earliest and biggest water fluoridation battles ….

Bryson goes on for pages describing how Bernays master-minded the campaign to convince Americans to accept water fluoridation.

And watch this brief interview:

(The whole 25-minute interview is a must-watch.)

Even Chemical and Engineering News noted in 1999:

According to Edward Groth III, an associate technical director of Consumers Union who wrote his Ph.D. thesis in biology on the fluoridation controversy in 1973, pro- and antifluoridationists approach the issue from completely different perspectives. “Proponents see it as a simple public health measure, effective and safe, which they need to ‘sell’ to the public, almost like a box of soap.

In other words, the U.S. government apparently hired the leading propagandist to create the myth that fluoride is safe and effective in order to protect its bomb-making program.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    our resident dds should show up any moment now. if you think about it, what he and the pro-fluoridation community are actually arguing for is centralization.

    if the people of detroit and flint had kept their wells, they’d have saved hundreds of millions of dollars, which instead went to goldman sachs financing useless centralized water treatment plants.

    their children wouldn’t have been exposed to lead. they could happily grow food using fresh water instead of the chlorinated/fluoridated/pharmaceutical-contaminated/toxic soup provided by ‘people who know better’.

    centralized banking/currency, power generation, healthcare, agriculture, h2o – these are the biggest threats to humanity.

    the most vociferous posters here attack ellen brown when she advocates for public banking. they become quite shrill when gw posts about fukushima radiation continuing to pour into the pacific. they want to put statins in the h2o alongside the fluoride. the passion with which they argue for gmo’s is astonishing.
    likewise, our resident dds holds a dubya-style level of confidence in his now clearly defunct hypothesis. somehow he thinks that repeating the mantra enough times will make it true.

    • Steven D Slott


      Fluoride has existed in water since the beginning of time. Cessation of fluoridation does not cease the ingestion of fluoride in water. It simply removes the benefit received while so doing and the controls which maintain the existing fluoride level at a minuscule level below the threshold of adverse effects. Thus, with cessation of fluoride, all of the perceived “risks” of fluoride espoused by antifluoridationists will still exist, while only the benefit will be removed. Too, as antifluoridationists are constantly putting forth all these scary, spooky horror stories about fluoride…..why in the world do they then advocate removal of the controls which maintain fluoride in water at appropriate levels below the threshold of adverse effects?

      Obviously, antifluoridationists have no idea, whatsoever, as to what it is that they are even requesting.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • David Fierstien

      kimyo, your quote: “if the people of detroit and flint had kept their wells, they’d have saved hundreds of millions of dollars, ” Wow!

      Detroit has a population of 689,000. Say there are an an average of 4 persons per household, that would be 172,000 wells in an area of 143 square miles.

      So let’s put that number of wells in that confined space. You would totally screw up the environment by depleting the aquifer.

      In the case of public water distribution systems, centralization is a good thing.

      Regarding the City of Flint’s problems, Yeah. No question. Their water source is the problem. They need to continue getting water from “centralized Detroit.”

      • kimyo

        centralized water is not sustainable. the energy required to operate the plant, build a new one every 30 or so years and maintain infrastructure is no longer available cheaply enough for this path to be viable.

        if you come up with a new source of energy, perhaps you could make this argument. otherwise, it’s a complete waste of resources.

        • David Fierstien

          Citations please

        • Steven D Slott

          Ironic that an antifluoridationist would complain about a “waste of resources”.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • kimyo

            Detroit Shows Wall Street Never Loses on Bad Swaps: Muni Credit

            JPMorgan Chase & Co., the third-largest muni-bond underwriter, stood to gain more than just its share of $7.8 million in fees by helping Detroit’s water and sewer unit issue new debt after the city staved off insolvency.

            The municipal department’s $659.8 million June bond sale let it pay more than $300 million to banks, including JPMorgan, to end interest-rate swap agreements while raising its borrowing cost. The utility, with 1,978 employees, plans to fire four of every five workers, while debt service has climbed to more than 40 percent of revenue, internal documents show.

  • October 01, 2015 Increasing fluoride levels in drinking water by just 1% can cause 131,000 ADHD cases, study shows

    Titled, “Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association,” the study noted that a “1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011.


    (2015) New Study Suggests A Link Between Fluoride and ADHD Malin and Till Environmental Health

    RESEARCH Open Access Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States


    • Steven D Slott

      Seems “The Professor” needs to widen his research beyond the dubious “Natural News”, and misinformation posted om antifluoridationist websites.

      The Malin study has already been so widely criticized in the scientific literature for its poor methodology, inadequate control of confounders, and reaching conclusions not supported by the peer-reviewed science. The inadequacy of controls is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Huber, et al., using the same data as did Malin, concluded that the reported cases of ADHD were correlated with the altitude at which the children resided, not with fluoridated water.

      —-J Atten Disord. 2015 Mar 25. pii: 1087054715577137. [Epub ahead of print]
      Association Between Altitude and Regional Variation of ADHD in Youth.
      Huber RS1, Kim TS2, Kim N3, Kuykendall MD4, Sherwood SN5, Renshaw PF6, Kondo DG6.

      In regard to Malin:

      “It’s an ecological study design with 51 observations (50 states & DC), and is not appropriate to test a hypothesis. ADHD prevalence was based on self-reported data, and hence had a potential of misclassification of disorder status. State-wide fluoridation measures were used. Individuals’ exposure to fluoridation were not measured. Due to ecological assessment of exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the use of prevalence data of self-reported ADHD and water fluoridation from different years, the findings are at high risk for ecological fallacy. Authors did not adjust for important confounders (smoking, low birth weight, age, sex etc.). Moreover, authors’ poor literature review and skewed interpretation of literature concerning fluoride and neurodevelomental defects may have introduced bias.


      From Peel:

      Poor quality ecological study with important design limitations – e.g., at high risk of ecological fallacy, measurement error (ADHD prevalence based on self-report), and confounding bias.
       The authors’ provide a bias view of the effects of fluoridation on children’s cognitive functions in their “introduction” and “discussion” sections; they state “Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin associated with impaired cognitive functioning in infants and children” (page 9)

      Their conclusion is misleading for three reasons: 

      1. They reference Grandjean & Landrigan (2014) a poor quality literature review, as evidence that fluoride is a neurotoxin. Grandejean & Landrigan conclusions are based on Choi et al. (2012) systematic review, which included poor quality primary studies that did not control for confoundersand not applicable to community water fluoridation. 
      2. They fail to cite a recent strong quality cohort study by Broadbent et al. (2014), which reported New Zealand children (followed from birth) living in fluoridated communities (0.85 ppm) did not differ in IQ compared to those living in non-fluoridated communities (0.0-0.03 ppm). This held true  at age 38 years, both before and after adjusting for confounders. 

      3. They fail to report three scientific reviews that have concluded insufficient evidence of an
      association between optimal fluoride consumption and adverse health effects.

      —–Peel Public Health
      —–https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http 3A__bit.ly_1aLhom8&d=BQMFaQ&c=2qwu4RrWzdlNOcmb_drAcw&r=pHIV_qXXSx7imDbFPzNxRS8IFchAU9wO8Lop_vuAxM&m=8EO4cey3iGjOECdDp6nmneGCQrz4SEnFuDlJxuRailc&s=wXlI1PWrqsbHxjKeJKYJSltLk1UP5dUhvSpfo6r68mI&e=

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity

        FLUORIDE FACT # 1 Consumption of Fluoridated Water Has Been Linked to Reduced IQ in Children

        A recently published Harvard University study found that children living in communities with high concentrations of fluoride in their water had IQ scores that were on average 7 points lower than those living in communities with low fluoride concentrations (Choi, Sun, Zhang & Grandjean, 2012)


        This study was reinforced by the even more recent 2015 pilot study published in the Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology which showed that “fluoride in drinking water may produce developmental neurotoxicity” (Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang & Philippe Grandjean, 2012).


        • Steven D Slott

          “The Professor”

          Sigh…….more copy/pastes from “fluoridealert”. You seriously need to widen your research to include some legitimate sources of information on this issue.

          1. The Harvard study was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

          “–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

          –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

          As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study. 

          2. In contrast to the severely flawed Chinese studies from obscure Chinese journals, the following is from a 2014 peer-reviewed study by Broadbent, et al. published in the American Journal of Public Health:

          No significant differences in IQ because of fluoride exposure were noted. These findings held after adjusting for potential confounding variables, including sex, socioeconomic status, breastfeeding, and birth weight (as well as educational attainment for adult IQ outcomes).

          These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.

          —-Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand
          Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD,Jiaxu Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
          (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)

          3. The 2015 pilot study was of the effects of elevated contrations of fluoride in the well-water of Sichuan, China. Water in the United States is fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

          From Choi, et al.;
          ‘A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on developmental fluoride neurotoxicity support the hypothesis that exposure to elevated concentrations of fluoride in water is neurotoxic during development.”

          —-Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: a pilot study.
          Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2015 Jan-Feb;47:96-101. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2014.11.001. Epub 2014 Nov 8.
          Choi AL1, Zhang Y2, Sun G3, Bellinger DC4, Wang K5, Yang XJ6, Li JS6, Zheng Q3, Fu Y7, Grandjean P8.

          4. In regard to the Chinese IQ studies:

          The authors of the primary observational studies have not consistently adjusted for the
          following confounding factors: the differences in environmental arsenic and iodine in water, parental education, and socioeconomic measures between the populations. There is a possibility that some or all of the impairment in IQ can be explained by these or other unmeasured or unknown factors.

          ● The authors of one of the systematic reviews have combined the results of these confounded observational studies into summary measures by meta analysis in a way that is not statistically appropriate or valid. The authors’ interpretation of the results is incorrect.

          ● The findings are unlikely to be directly applicable to the population of Southampton because the level of fluoride found in the high fluoride areas in this research was generally higher than that intended for use in water fluoridation schemes (1ppm), or was confounded by varying levels of other chemicals in drinking water that are not a problem in the UK (iodine or arsenic).

          ● Sources of fluoride exposure exist in these settings that do not exist in the UK setting, for example, burning high fluoride coal and eating contaminated grain, which can substantially contribute to fluoride exposure.

          —Independent critical appraisal of selected studies reporting an association between fluoride in drinking water and IQ
          A report for South Central Strategic Health Authority Delivery date: 11th February 2009
          Bazian, Ltd

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • May 1, 2015 Walt presents video of Dr. Griffin Cole to Austin City Council 26 Mar 2015 (III)


          • David Fierstien

            So, Griffin Cole makes 3 arguments that anti water-fluoridation people have made ad nauseam:

            1.) Hydrofluorosilicic acid is used as a fluoridating agent. So what. It is a scientific fact that people do not consume fluorosilicic acid (same thing) at the water tap. All people consume are the fluoride ions, and harmless silica, all in fractions of a part per million, which is chemically expressed thus: H2SiF6(aq) + 4H2O(l) = 6HF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq) (eq 1)

            2.) And this is the most laughable: “It does not do its intended function.” How many studies would you like, “The Professor.” Here, for a starter are a few. Let me know if you need more:

            A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation.


            “Fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride. It is recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6-1.1 mg/l, depending on the climate, to balance reduction of dental caries and occurrence of dental fluorosis”

            Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children’s Dental Disease


            “children residing in areas with ≥0.7 ppm fluoride in the water supplies had both lower caries prevalence and lower caries experience.”

            Physiology and toxicity of fluoride


            “It is very clear that fluoride in recommended concentrations is definitely beneficial to health. So as to capitalize on the beneficial effects of fluoride, judicious use of fluoride supplements is mandatory.”

            Fluoride Concentration of Drinking Water in Babil-Iraq


            “… it is found that the level of fluoride is far below the upper level recommended by WHO and by Bureau of Iraqi Standards. To prevent dental caries, it is recommended that drinking water in iraq should be fluorideated.”

            Water fluoridation


            “Water fluoridation, where technically feasible and culturally acceptable, remains a relevant and valid choice as a population measure for the prevention of dental caries.”

            Water fluoridation in 40 Brazilian cities: 7 year analysis


            “The majority of samples from cities performing fluoridation had fluoride levels within the range that provides the best combination of risks and benefits, minimizing the risk of dental fluorosis while preventing dental caries”

            Fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages


            “These findings suggest that fluoride is effective in preventing caries in adults of all ages.”

            Effects of Fluoridated Drinking Water on Dental Caries in Australian Adults


            3.) No dose control. This implies that some drug is being dispensed. No court of last resort in the United States has ever considered water fluoridation a drug. Vitamin D is added to milk. Cereal is fortified with vitamins & minerals. Long story short, Dr. Cole’s arguments have no merit.

            In the end, Austin looked at ALL the evidence, and concluded that Dr. Cole was lying.

          • I can assure you I have been Fluoride free for years and I am as healthy as I was at sixteen. Life is about choices, and mine starts with what goes in my own body. Drink up all you want of your government medication. I have no problem with you doing that what so ever!

          • David Fierstien

            It’s impossible to be “fluoride free.” Even distilled water has trace amounts. I once tested distilled water for fluoride using deionized a

          • I use a filtration system that removes all of it with a meter for testing minerals contaminates to verify.

          • David Fierstien

            Is the meter you are referring to an Ion Selective meter? I would be surprised if your filter is removing all fluoride from your water as this is almost impossible.

            I know for a fact that much of the misinformation about fluoridated water comes from companies that sell water filters. The Girl Against Fluoride in Ireland was accepting kickbacks from the Renwell water filter company. That is a documented fact. Mercola sells very expensive RO water filters, and Mercola also funds the Fluoride Action Network. There is a Canadian bottled water company, that also sells $700 water filters. The owner, David Green, is often seen on the internet posting misinformation about community water fluoridation.

            Nevertheless, a lot of foods are high in fluoride. Fish, for example. Black and green tea have several times the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water. The oceans have twice the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, so if you have ever taken a swim in the ocean you are exposing yourself to high levels of fluoride.

            Long story short, you are only fooling yourself, and spending needless money on expensive filtration devices, when you claim you have a choice about what your body is exposed to. If you live on planet Earth, you are not entirely fluoride free.

          • Steven D Slott

            What a collossal waste of money. But…hey…it’s your money to waste.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Steven D Slott

            “Communist Chinese”……”YouTube” videos??

            You are in serious need of a reality check, “professor”.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Jul 23, 2015 Austin Texas Discussing Water Fluoridation on 6th Street


  • justquitnow

    As usual we should follow the money. And there is some old money behind the chemical companies that supply the fluoride. Imagine having contracts with cities across the country to the tune of millions of dollars a year each where you get to supply them with your otherwise valueless chemical swill. This is another example of how big companies and greed prevent progress because it would be less money for them.

    • Steven D Slott


      Yes, follow the money. Let’s look at those who are, indeed, profiting from keeping this issue alive:

      1.  Paul Connett, the Director of the antifluoridationist group, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), long time antifluoridationist zealot-   Paul’s non peer-reviewed book, which he pushes at every conceivable opportunity, sells for $25 per copy.  Paul claims that he donates all royalties he receives from his book sales, to his non-profit group, FAN.  Given that FAN presumably pays all or part of Paul’s fluoride chasing trips all over the United Stated, to New Zealand, Australia, Europe, and anywhere else he chooses to visit, this “donation” would seem to be little more than a tax strategy.

      Additionally, both Paul and his wife receive monthly payments of $1,000 each from the umbrella organization under which FAN operates.

      2.  William Hirzy- the long time antifluoridationist, and close Connett affiliate, Hirzy, is the paid lobbyist for Connett’s group, FAN.

      3. Attorney James Deal- close Connett affiliate, and donor  to FAN, Deal, maintains a website devoted soley to attempts at stirring up  class-action lawsuits against fluoridation, from which he would presumably profit in the delusionary dream that he would ever succeed. 

      4.  Alex Jones- Connett  affiliate, and syndicated, controversial radio host, Jones, of “Infowars” infamy, is now pushing, for $39.95  a solution called “FluorideShield”

      According to Jones’ website:
      “Introducing Fluoride Shield™, an Infowars Life exclusive blend of key herbs and ingredients specifically infused within the formula to help support the elimination of toxic forms of fluoride and other dangerous compounds like mercury, chlorine, and bromine from within the body.”


      5.  Whatever may be paid to Connett’s son, Michael, for his “services” to FAN as well as to any other Connett family members and/or friends.

      As FAN operates under the umbrella of another non-profit organization, the FAN financials lack the transparency as would normally be expected of any such non-profit organization dependent on public donations, and exempt from federal income taxes.  

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Steven D Slott

        109 comments • 37 votes

        • David Fierstien

          What strikes me as odd, “The Professor,” is that you are hiding behind a pseudonym, while Dr. Slott is using his real name. Who’s got something to hide?

          • How do you know that is the real Dr. Slott?

          • David Fierstien

            Well that’s a great question, “The Professor.”

            Here are the facts that we do know. We know that you are hiding behind a fake name, for whatever reason. That is a fact.

            We also know that you are questioning the validity of another commentator’s identity. I’m speculating here, but I would think that belies a somewhat paranoid personality. I mean, why on Earth would anybody question the identity of anybody using a real name, rather than a pseudonym, unless they have some issues. Google him and check it out if your insecurities drive you to it. There. Problem solved.

          • Great question with a two fold answer!

            Jun 7, 2013 William Binney – The Government is Profiling You (The NSA is Spying on You)


            May 15, 2014 Spying Is Meant to Crush Citizens’ Dissent, Not Catch Terrorists

            500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is *ALWAYS* Aimed at Crushing Dissent


          • David Fierstien

            What exactly are you a professor of? Perhaps you teach Paranoia 101?

          • Birds of a feather flock together

            When people that act the same, hang out together. People that have the same morals often tend to group. It has nothing to do with jealousy, nor the amount of friends a person is allowed to hang out with. It is NOT pointed towards having a close friend neither. it simply means when people act the same, they normally hang out. Like a clique.

            Wondalee told someone something Maria told her not to tell anyone about. Taylor told a boy something and brought up Ella’s name, when Ella wasnt supposed to tell anyone but trusted Taylor. Wondalee and taylor hang out on a daily basis. THEREFORE, taylor & wondalee, are birds of a feather that flock together(they were doing the same thing)…. thus an average person would describe what they did using the saying “birds of a feather flock together”


          • Steven D Slott

            You have just described antifluoridationists to a “T”. Birds that flock together lapping up the same nonsense spoon-fed to them from little antifluoridationist websites, denying science, denying the facts and evidence put before them by authoritative sources of accurate information, reinforcing each others’ confirmation bias toward the same, skewed ideology against fluoridation which has existed since the John Birch Society at the very beginning 70 years ago, making the same, stale arguments which have been refuted countless times………in other words, crowd followers unable to think for themselves, who all depend on the same sources of misinformation which “confirms” their bias, while discarding anything which does not..

            Here’s a clue, “professor”, stop deluding yourself that you are some sort of independent free thinker, and understand that you are nothing but a crowd follower who cannot think for himself. I have refuted every argument you’ve made, by presenting facts with the scientific evidence that fully supports them. Why have I been able to do this so easily? Because you present no arguments that I haven’t encountered, verbatim, hundreds of times before from equally uninformed antifluoridationists who rely on the same erroneous sources as do you, while deluding themselves that they are some sort of “independent thinkers.”

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • David Fierstien

            Hey professor, could you please provide a link to that Richard Feynman quote?

          • Yes I can, and yes I will.

            Browse quotations by topic: Inspirational Motivational Funny Positive Life Love Success Smile Happiness Wisdom Change Friendship Leadership Education Family Birthday Work More topics Popular Authors Browse by author: Albert Einstein Dr. Seuss Aristotle Plutarch Walt Disney Buddha Abraham Lincoln A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Muhammad Ali William Shakespeare Stephen Hawking Mark Twain Maya Angelou Winston Churchill Bob Marley Confucius Oscar Wilde

            BrainyQuote.com ‘Copyright 2001 – 2015’ BrainyQuote All rights reserved

            ” No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. ” Aesop

          • David Fierstien

            Sorry, I couldn’t find that quotation on that website, but I did like this one by Feynman: “Europeans are much more serious than we are in America because they think that a good place to discuss intellectual matters is a beer party.
            Richard P. Feynman

          • Here is another, “I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.” Richard P. Feynman

          • David Fierstien

            Can’t argue with that

          • LindaRosaRN

            “Of course if we make good things, it is not only to the credit of science; it is also to the credit of the moral choice which led us to good work.” — Feynman. This is fluoridation, a remarkable public health measure that fights tooth decay.

          • Steven D Slott

            Ahhhh, why is it of no surprise that the antifluoridationist “professor” is a conspiracy theorist……

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Steven D Slott

            It really doesn’t matter, now does it “Professor”? I’ve exposed your copy/paste junk from “FAN” for exactly what it is, with fully veriable facts and evidence, so it doesn’t matter whether I am the “real Dr. Slott” or not.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

        • 1875
          • Steven D Slott

            Ahhh, the coward who snivels behind the pseudonym, “1875” while posting one lie after another, provides the standard nonsense about me posted by antiflluoridationists who think it makes one iota of difference to me, or anyone else.

            Truly comical!

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Evidence please, Steve.

          • Steven D Slott

            It is not my responsibility to provide “evidence” which disproves unsubstantiated claims. If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claims, then produce it, properly cited.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            So you have no evidence then, so you must be lying. Typical.

          • Steven D Slott

            Yet another unsubstantiated claim that someone is “lying”. When all else fails, always the fallback for the coward “1875”.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • 1875

        hahaha. Fluoridation is worth billions of dollars. You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

        • Steven D Slott

          That chemical manufacturing businesses make a profit from selling the products they produce….is somehow not acceptable to antifluoridationists? These businesses should simply produce products then give them away?

          Hmmm, yet another reason to hope that the coward, “1875” is not in charge of the finances of anyone but himself. I suppose I would cower behind a pseudonym too if I was regurgitating that sort of “logic”.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            It’s from the pollution control scrubbers and they would have to pay a lot to dispose of it if they didn’t sell it. You are being slippery and dishonest again.

          • Steven D Slott

            “Pollution control scrubbers”? Another one of your nonsensical concoctions?

            If you are referring to the scrubbers which precipitate useful substances out of gases, substances which otherwise would be wasted……. are you against the productive use and conservation of our resources?

            For intelligent readers who would like to view a “scrubber” used to capture valuable resources which would otherwise be wasted, a process about which antifluoridationist remain so uninformed:


            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Valuable if you can set up a scam to make money, yes.

          • Steven D Slott

            “Valuable if you can set up a scam to make money, yes”

            Having had his misinformation, lies, and utter nonsense constantly exposed as being such, the commenter who cowardly hides behind the pseudonym “1875” falls back on the stale old antifluoridationist unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy nonsense.

            So predictable, and so comical.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Steven D Slott

            In regard to your ridiculous claim, yet one more in the voluminous list of your lies, of disposal cost “savings”……. the fluoride destined for water treatement is an inconsequential portion of the mined fluoride.  The mining companies incur no special cost in the normal disposal and avoid no costs whatsoever from water additive sales.  Because the process requires energy and reagent inputs it saves no money.  Recently almost all of the sodium fluoride comes from overseas sources because the phosphate rock based manufacture is too expensie to be price competitive.

            At the NOHC last year Kip Duchon described some additional important manufacturing details.  HFSA is accumulated at the phosphate rock processing plant in 20,000 gallon containers.   When the container is full it is analyzed  for contaminants.  If it passes the grade the entire container is used for both pharmaceutical and water additive grades without further processing.

            Source:  Kip Duchon, National Fluoridation Water Engineer, 2013 National Oral 
            Health Conference presentation.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            That’s disingenuous. I guess the testing shows its’ very toxic with lots of contaminants and then saying it passes. Very slippery indeed.

          • Steven D Slott

            Your failure to understand scientific statements and literature does not equate to those statements and literature being “disingenuous”. It equates to your own ignorance.

            All water at the tap must meet stringent EPA mandated qualification certification requirements under Standard 60 of the NSF. Standard 60 requires that no contaminant be present in water at the tap in excess of 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water at the tap easily meets all Standard 60 requirements. The complete contents of fluoridated water at the tap including precise amounts of any detected contaminants and the EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety may be found:


            Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • justquitnow

        Yeah I know right…activists are suppose to starve and never get money for their time. I was talking about the millions per year per “client” of the companies that make the chemicals…not the $25 book of some person I never heard of.

        • Steven D Slott


          Ahhhh, so it is okay to profit from the fluoridation issue…….as long as you are an antifluoridationist. However, If you are a fluoridation advocate or a chemical manufacturing business which supplies fluoridationist substances, it is not acceptable?

          Hmmmm, seems to be a bit of hypocrisy there.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • justquitnow

            Um, through reduction you can make all things the same. You’re being purposefully obtuse as below where you claim someone said the companies should give their product away. No one said that. Just like I didn’t say one could “profit” and one could not. You write like a shill and you make stupid strawman arguments.

        • Steven D Slott

          So what? Just because an article lists a few sources does not mean that the misrepresentation of information from those sources is valid.

          1. ejournal is an online, open access journal whose co-editor in chief is Phillippe Grandjean, a faculty member of the Harvard School of Public Health who has been trying desperately, and fruitlessly for years to attach IQ loss to water fluoridation. This journal charges a $2200 fee to those wishing to see their work in print. Malin published her already widely discredited ADHD study in this online journal presumably because she had no other options, and she knew Grandjean would do it, if indeed the study was not irequested by Grandjean in the first place. One of the main reviewers of Malin’s study was Anna Choi, Grandjean’s partner in their review of the flawed Chinese studies on IQ.

          2. National Public Radio is not a scientific source. Whatever was plucked from an NPR report does not have credibility simply because it was in a radio broadcast.

          3. The CDC has been widely misrepresented by antifluoridationists who pluck a sentence or two from the volumes of CDC literature and use it out-of-context, in the erroneous belief that this somehow supports their position. The CDC was misrepresented in this article, with out-of-context information implying that the CDC believes there to be no value in ingesting fluoridated water. This is false. The CDC fully recognizes that the effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic….as evidenced by its full support of this initiative.

          4. ‘Natural News” is a worthless, biased little online publication that has no credibility whatsoever. Douglas Main is well known for having his erroneous opinion pieces against fluoridation published in this rag.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • 1875
    • johndmac

      Fluoride “science”: Put on a Smiley Face!

  • David Fierstien

    I always have to laugh when people post the graph of World Health Organization (WHO) data that shows an equal decline in oral disease between fluoridated & non-fluoridated countries. What they fail to take into consideration is

    1.) These graphs were prepared by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and although FAN may have used actual WHO data doesn’t it strike anyone as odd that

    2.) Over a span of time, reaching from the mid 1960s to the 2000s, each of the countries in question are represented by straight lines. This means that only 2 points of data were used for each country.

    If I wanted to make a similar graph, intended to reach the opposite conclusion, and I was allowed to use any 2 points of data of my choosing, it wouldn’t be that difficult. The fact is that FAN has produced a deceptive graph.

    According to the World Health Organization, “Water fluoridation in low fluoride-containing water supplies helps to maintain optimal dental tissue development and dental enamel resistance against caries attack during the entire life span.” http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/oralhealth/en/index2.html

    That really doesn’t make sense, does it, if those graphs that FAN prepared are representative of the truth.

    • Steven D Slott

      ‘FAN” presenting anything, whatsoever, that is representative of the truth? Well, I suppose that may could, possibly, somehow be remotely possible…….maybe in an alternate dimension or something……

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • 1875

      Show us your graph.

      • David Fierstien

        Thank you for your question, 1875, who hides behind a fake name because you know you are lying and you don’t have to be held accountable for your lies if you use a fake name.

        I’m afraid the World Health Organization didn’t prepare a deceptive graph the way the Fluoride Action Network did, as you fully know. The WHO is not a deceptive organization.

        But the WHO does have full access to its own data, and as you can see from my comment and documented link above, the WHO fully supports water fluoridation.

        Please explain why the WHO would support community water fluoridation if it is ineffective.

        • 1875

          Show us your graph. Still waiting – sigh.

          • David Fierstien

            Sure, no problem. Let me get some crayons & paper & I’ll get it done just like FAN’s. Give me your email address & I’ll get it to you. You’re that osteopathic quack from New Zealand, David Thomas, aren’t you?

          • 1875

            OK I’m looking forward to that. Still playing with your crayons eh? Things make sense now.

      • Steven D Slott

        So, because Connett’s graph of “WHO” data has been clearly demonstrated to be deceptive nonsense, it is the responsibility of someone else to produce a graph? Well, that “logic” provides a good laugh, if nothing else.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

        • 1875

          You are lying again Steve as you can’t produce any evidence.

          • Steven D Slott

            Well…..as mind reading is not one of my many talents, you will need to specify exactly what “evidence” you seem to need.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • 1875
    • Steven D Slott

      When the coward “1875” gets frustrated with the facts and evidence that refute every bit of the copy/paste nonsense he spews all over one website after another, he inevitably posts links to nonsense about me concocted by antifluoridationists. While it is entertaining to read, what is even more entertaining is that fact that this coward actually seems to believe that this nonsense is of any consequence whatsoever to me, or anyone else with more than half a brain.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • 1875

        Evidence please.

  • 1875

    Just 1 mg a day fluoride can cause side effects according to peer reviewed, placebo controlled research.

    • Steven D Slott

      The coward “1875” sinks to even more cowardly depths with this attempted exploitation of a poor child with some unknown skin affliction. He, once again, is using the long since discredited half-century old Feltman study to erroneously imply he has “evidence” to support his position. The picture of the child is not cited, there is no date, no diagnosis, no nothing. Simply the type of reprehensible exploitation so characteristic of unscrupulous antifluoridationists.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • 1875

        You must be blind then. However here is some more detail.
        Journal of Dental Medicine 1961; 16: 190-99 Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides – Fourteen years of investigation – Final report.

        Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. † and George Kosel, B.S., M.S. §

        † Principal Investigator,
        Dental Research Laboratory, Passaic General Hospital

        § Chief Biochemist, Dental Research Laboratory,
        Passaic General Hospital.

        The study has never been discredited by valid studies and stands as an eternal testament to the shocking scientific fraud fluoridationists pursue.

        • Steven D Slott

          Sigh…..yet once again, the half-century old Feltman study has long since been discredited.

          Feltman’s half century old study was completely refuted by the American Academy of Allergies in 1971:

          “The reports of fluoride allergy reviewed (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) listed a wide variety of symptoms including vomiting, abdominal pain, headaches, scotomata, personality change, muscular weakness, painful numbness in extremities, joint pain, migraine headaches, dryness in the mouth, oral ulcers, convulsions, mental deterioration, colitis, pelvic hemorrhages, urticaria, nasal congestion, skin rashes, epigastric distress and hematemesis.

          The review of the reported allergic reactions showed no evidence that immuno- logically mediated reaction of the Types I-IV had been presented. Secondly, the review of the cases reported demonstrated that there was insufficient clinical and laboratory evidence to state that true syndromes of fluoride allergy or intolerance exist.

          As a result of this review, the members of the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Allergy have adopted unanimously the following statement:

          ‘There is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.’ ”

          ——-A Statement On The Question Of Allergy to Fluoride As Used In The Fluoridation Of Community Water Supplies
          American Academy of Allergy 1971

          Feltman and Kosel were #’s 4 and 5 of the reports reviewed by the AAA.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Thanks for confirming that the AAA just made up a statement without doing any testing themselves, Shocking.

          • Steven D Slott

            Oh, this is priceless! The coward who hides behind the pseudonym, “1875” personally deems the half-century old study involving purported allergic reactions to fluoride to be valid, when he hasn’t even read the study, much less done any “testing” himself. On the other hand we have the prestigious American Academy of Allergy composed of highly respected allergists from all over the world, which had reviewed the study in question and deemed it to have no validity.

            Hmmm, on an issue of purported allergic response, do we go with the “learned” opinion of “1875” who renders that opinion having not even read the study in question, or that of the American Academy of Allergy?

            Gee, that’s a tough one……

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            You are lying again Steve. I have read it.

            Thanks again for confirming the AAA didn’t do any testing so their statement has no validity at all.

          • Steven D Slott

            Highly doubtful that you have read that, or any other study. As evidenced by the laundry list of study titles you’ve copy/pasted in one or two of your comments, you had no idea as to what was even the topic of the studies, much less having read any of them.

            I’m fine with the ability of intelligent readers to discern the difference between the opinion of an uninformed antifluoridationist who has no idea what he is talking about, and that of highly respected worldwide experts on the topic in question.

            The coward who hides behind the pseudonym, “1875” while disseminating one lie after another……or the prestigious American Academy of Allergy?

            Gee, tough choice……

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Still repeating lies eh Steve.

          • Steven D Slott

            Still cowering behind a pseudonym? Comical.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Still backing statements over scientific testing. I suppose that’s to be expected from someone with your anti-science point of view.

          • David Fierstien

            1875, seriously? you? Accusing someone else of an anti-science point of view? That’s a laugh, coming from an osteopathic quack http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

          • 1875

            That’s a lie David. I’m not an osteopath.

          • David Fierstien

            Evidence please. Or aren’t you familiar with methodologies of science?

          • David Fierstien

            You are a quack

          • Steven D Slott

            The opinion of the online commenter who cowers behind the pseudonym “1875”, in regard to a study involving allergic response, which the coward has obviously not even read, much less understood……or the opinion of the highly respected American Academy of Allergy composed of allergists from all over the world, on this same study, which it had carefully reviewed?

            Gee….tough choice.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Still backing opinions over science. Thought so.

          • Steven D Slott

            Still deluding that the opinion of a cowardly commenter hiding behind a pseudonym somehow outweighs that of the American Academy of Allergy.

            Gee…….tough choice….

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Wow that is dishonest. It’s not my opinion but the research findings of Feltman and Kosel.

            The Feltman and Kosel study was published in the Journal of Dental Medicine
            and received funding from the US Public Health Service, Department of Health
            Education and Welfare, Washington DC.
            Feltman DDS – (Doctor of Dental Surgery) – Principal investigator,
            Dental Research Laboratory, Passaic General Hospital, New Jersey. Kosel – MSc –
            Chief biochemist, Dental Research Laboratory, Passaic General Hospital. New

  • 1875

    According to a 2006 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies , fluoride is “an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function.”

    This altered function can involve your thyroid, parathyroid, and pineal glands, as well as your adrenals, pancreas, and pituitary.

    Your thyroid gland and its associated hormones are responsible for maintaining your body’s overall metabolic rate, and for regulating normal growth and development. As all metabolically active cells require thyroid hormone for proper functioning, disruption of this system can have a wide range of effects on virtually every system of your body.

    Thyroid dysfunction is considered among the most prevalent of endocrine diseases in the United States and Ireland and most of the dozen or so fluoridated countries.

    • Steven D Slott

      Seems like the coward “1875” needs to, yet once again, be educated on the 2006 NRC report.

      The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with endocrine, or anything else with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.

      Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

      In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:

      “I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”

      —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • 1875

        Wow one third is not adequate. In addition you are only talking concentration. What about the dose? Peer reviewed science shows adverse effects at just 1mg per day in some people as listed in the Physicians Desk Reference.

        John Doull can believe all he wants but the science shows adverse effects at low levels.

        • Steven D Slott

          Now the coward, “1875” deems hinself to be the sole arbiter as to what level of fluoride provides “adequate” margin of safety, and fails to understand that “dose” is determined by concentration in water X amount of water ingested. The “dose” of fluoride ingested as a result of fluoridation is 0.7 mg per every one liter of fluoridated water consumed. Given that fluoride in water and beverages constitutes 75% of total fluoride ingested, a simple math equation demonstrates that prior to the daily upper limit before adverse effects could be attained, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride. As there have been no proven adverse effects of optimally fluoridated water in its entire 70 year history, obviously the margin of safety between the optimal level of fluoride and its threshold of adverse effects, has been clearly demonstrated to be completely adequate.

          It is always interesting that uniformed antifluoridations such as the cowardly “1875” constantly proclaim what the peer-reviewed science shows, but then are inexplicably unable to provide any such science when challenged to do so. So, “1875” produce such peer-reviewed science you claim exists. And, while you’re at it, produce any valid peer-reviewed science which demonstrates any adverse effects of optimally fluoridated water.

          Fascinating that “1875” deems himself to be more knowledgeable on “the science” than John Doull, MD, PhD who spent 3 years exhaustively reviewing all the pertinent fluoride literature, while serving as Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. Given that “1875” has clearly demonstrated that he doesn’t even read any of the “science” he mindlessly copy/pastes from “”fluoridealert”, much less understand it, his personal opinion as to what the “science shows” could not be any more laughable.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Repeating lies doesn’t make things magically come true, Steve. Your reputation is a train wreck I’m afraid,

          • Steven D Slott

            Correct. Repeating lies doesn’t magically make things come true, a fact you cannot seem to comprehend. While I have exposed your lies all over the internet, and challenged you to provide proof that anything I have posted to be a lie, you have as yet to provide one single solitary scrap of such proof.

            It is quite obvious whom is the liar here. I’m fine exposing you every time you post your constant stream of lies, though.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            I’m still waiting for your evidence. You are lying as I’ve repeatedly exposed them. Your reputation is a train wreck.

          • Steven D Slott

            Evidence of what? Your lies? That evidence is all up and down this page. I’ll be glad to consolidate them if you wish.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Your lies actually.

          • Steven D Slott

            You want evidence of “my lies”? That’s your claim, thus your responsibility for which to provide proof. In spite of repeated challenges to provide proof that anything I have stated to be a lie, you have not provided one, single scrap. Now, if you want me to provide a list of your lies, just let me know and I’ll be glad to do so. It will take me a while to get them all listed but I will gladly do it.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • johndmac

            Randy Johnson up-voted Slott’s statement: “Lithium does not exist in water naturally.”

          • johndmac
  • 1875

    “It is now known that such vital organs as the kidneys, thyroid, aorta (main heart artery), liver, lungs and others can be the sites of an unusually high fluoride build-up. No matter how small the amount of fluoride in the diet, a part of it tends to accumulate in the body. When the water supply is fluoridated the intake of the individual is considerably increased and the accumulation in the body increases accordingly. There is no clear-cut pattern as to the degree of retention among individuals. Further, it
    accumulates in certain organs in an unpredictable way. Some individuals may store up to 100 times more fluoride in certain tissue than others. This has given rise to concern over fluoride’s possible role in chronic disease. Fluoride is an enzyme poison and medical authorities recognize that disturbances of the enzyme system are a cause of disease.” (Dr. Jonathan Forman, M.D., world-renowned specialist in allergy, Professor-Emeritus of Ohio State University, former editor of the Ohio State Medical Journal, editor of Clinical Physiology, in statement in behalf of Medical-Dental Committee on
    Evaluation of Fluoridation.)

    “Fluorine and fluorides can act as direct cellular poisons by interfering with calcium metabolism and enzyme mechanisms.” (Handbook of Poisoning: Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment, 11th Edition, 1983.)

    “Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide … it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses.” (James B. Patrick, Ph.D., antibiotics
    research scientist.)

    “Yes, fluoride is an (enzyme) inhibitor. You are right in the implication that when it comes to certain patients, it is important that they do not have fluoride in the water.” (Dr. Harold Loe, National
    Institute of Dental Research, to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations
    Committee, 1989.)

    • Steven D Slott

      What the coward “1875” has posted here is nothing but his own, obviously unqualified and meaningless personal opinions and testimonials of some of the small handful of scientists worldwide who oppose fluoridation. So what? Would he like a list of 150+ of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world which fully support fluoridation? How about the opinions of the past 5 US Surgeons General, all of whom fully support fluoridation. The Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry and Public Health, all of whom fully support fluoridation? The opinion of the Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking water and one of the most highly respected toxicologists in the nation, who states he sees no scientific reason to fear optimally fluoridated water?s

      Antifluoridationists seem to think that testimonials from this little handful of fluoridation opponents overrides the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare. Obviously, they do not even come close.

      And why does the coward “1875” not provide even one single respected organization, worldwide, which opposes fluoridation? Because there are none.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • 1875

    The following is what fluoride chemicals with a contaminant list longer then my arm does to a nation. The populations of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland have the same diet and genetics the only difference being fluoridation. Official government data shows that in fluoridated Republic of Ireland diabetes is 470% higher than non-fluoridated Northern Ireland, mortality from endocrine and metabolic disorders 350% higher, rheumatoid arthritis 277% higher and diseases of the musculoskeletal system 228% higher than Northern Ireland. The incidence of early onset dementia is 450% higher, the incidence of Sudden Death Syndrome 300% higher while the incidence of a wide range of cancers are significantly higher in the Republic of Ireland compared to Northern Ireland and the EU. The Republic of Ireland has the highest incidence of hormone related
    cancers such as ovarian and prostate cancers in the EU. Overall cancer incidence is 38% higher
    than the UK and according to the World Health Organization cancer incidence in the Republic
    of Ireland is 85% above the corresponding incidence rate for European region and 43% above the EU incidence rate. The incidence rates for chronic lymphoblastic leukaemia are 53.5% higher for males and 53.1% higher for females in the RoI compared to Northern Ireland. Remarkably male’s
    incidence rates increased in Republic of Ireland by 2.8% per year during 1994‐2004, while in
    Northern Ireland rates were static. Ireland has the highest death rate from respiratory disease in Western Europe with death rates at almost twice the EU average, Ireland also has the highest mortality rates form diseases of the blood including severe immunodeficiency. Ireland has the highest rates of obesity in EU and incidence of Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDs). For example regarding SIDs, Ireland had the highest incidence of SIDs until recently where fluoridated New Zealand now leads with Ireland second. New Zealand surpasses Ireland for Obesity (note fluoride is a metabolic poison and inhibits glucose metabolism. New Zealand also surpasses Ireland for deaths from musculoskeletal diseases as well a s ischaemic heart disease (fluoride promotes calcification of arteries). New Zealand is second to Ireland for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who unfortunately lead the developed world. Ireland has the highest incidence of cancer in EU and cancer
    incidence rates in NZ are also very high significantly above the OECD average. New Zealand
    has the highest mortality from non‐ Hodgkin’s lymphoma, next to fluoridated Canada, the
    USA and Ireland.
    At least three judicial findings in the US regarding fluoridation found that water fluoridation endangered the public health with increased risk of cancer and other ailments.

    • David Fierstien

      It’s obvious why you use a fake name, 1875, you through your teeth. With all your scare mongering, can you name even one person who has been physically harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water? I won’t hold my breath. There is no one.

      • 1875

        Peer reviewed science shows you are wrong.

        There are the recent kidney studies listed in PubMed. Fluoridated water is also
        correlated with kidney disease in children suffering from dental fluorosis. 58%
        of black children and 36% of white children have dental fluorosis. Those
        children with fluorosis also have more broken bones:

        2014: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890436/pdf/40064_2013_Article_766.pdf

        2014: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004

        2001: http://ir.cmu.edu.tw/ir/bitstream/310903500/1332/1/2001067481.pdf

        And a couple of thyroid:

        2014: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169868/

        2014: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890436/pdf/40064_2013_Article_766.pdf

        And impact on aquatic life, albeit from fluoride pollution. Fluoride
        bioaccumulates in our soil:

        2014: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213386/



        2015: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036214001809

        2015: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215

        Nov 2015: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26673535

        • David Fierstien

          Again, for the second time, 1875, who uses a fake name for obvious reasons, please name one person who has ever been physically harmed from drinking optimally fluoridated water. And again, I won’t hold my breath.

        • Steven D Slott

          Ahh, the coward who snivels behind the pseudonym, “1875”, presents a litany of irrelevant study titles which he has copy/pasted from his usual antifluoridationist websites obviously having not read a single one of the studies. So, let’s take a look. First, the studies which “1875” claims demonstrate “more broken bones”.

          1. 2014 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm

          This is a study published by Springer, the open access publisher which charges a hefty fee for those who wish to see their work in print, with no apparent options to do so otherwise. In regard to Springer:

          “In 2014, it was revealed that Springer had published 16 fake papers in its journals that had been computer-generated using SCIgen. Springer subsequently removed all the papers from these journals. IEEE had also done the same thing by removing more than 100 fake papers from its conference proceedings.[11]”

          “In 2015, Springer retracted 64 of the papers it had published after it was found that they had gone through a fraudulent peer review process.[12]”


          “This is officially becoming a trend: Springer is pulling another 64 articles from 10 journals after finding evidence of faked peer reviews, bringing the total number of retractions from the phenomenon north of 230.”


          Even if any studies published by Springer could be trusted, this particular one has no relevance to water fluoridation. It uses a sample size of exactly 60 kids in the country of India to claim a correlation of thyroid disfunction with fluoride in drinking water. The control group was a whopping 10 kids. The 60 kids of the study were in areas with water fluoride content of 2.6 ppm to 5.1 ppm. The control group, which the study authors stated had “safe levels of fluoride” were in areas of 1.0 ppm fluoride in the water. Water in the US is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, below the concentration which was deemed safe by this study.

          “It has been reassured that the study was conducted in conformity with principles in Helsinki Declaration and others specified in the respective ethics committees of

          Rajasthan University. In group 1A (n = 30), 15 children were selected from areas having water fluoride level up to 2.6 ppm while the remaining 15 children were from areas having water fluoride level up to 5.1 ppm.In group1B (n = 30), 15 children were selected from areas having water fluoride level up to 2.6 ppm while the remaining 15 children were from areas having water fluoride levelup to 5.1 ppm. The group 2 children (n = 10) were of the same age range and socio economic status, residing in the non-endemic area, without exhibiting dental fluorosis and serving as the control group. Their drinking water was deemed to be “safe” (<1.0 mg F–/L) and like the sample group, these control children were alsoinvestigated for thyroid gland function."


          2. 2014 Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats.

          Martín-Pardillos A1, Sosa C2, Millán Á3, Sorribas V4.

          This is a study of the effects of fluoride injected into rats which had undergone artificial destruction of their kidneys.

          Enough said.

          3. 2001 Factors Affecting Urinary Fluoride Concentrations Among Patients With Renal Dysfunction

          Hsien-Wen Kuo, Chuan-Juan Lin2, Li-Li Chen1

          This is a study that concludes that patients severely medically compromised with chronic renal failure should monitor their intake of fluoride. Is this really news to anyone? Severely medically compromised patients must carefully monitor their intake of everything, in strict accordance with directives from their medical providers. This is not a reason to deprive entire populations the benefits of a very valuable public health initiative.

          “Conclusions. It is vital that patients in both the CRF and CAPD groups control their dietary intake of fluoride in order to prevent further deterioration of their conditions. Further research is needed to establish the relationship between fluoride intake and renal abnormalities.”

          —— ( Mid Taiwan J Med 2001;6:74-81)

          Now let’s look at “1875’s” “thyroid studies”.

          4. 2014: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…Oral manifestations of thyroid disorders and its management

          Shalu Chandna and Manish Bathla1

          This is a study of the proper management of patients with thyroid disorders. It has absolutely nothing to do with water fluoridation.


          Dental treatment modifications may be necessary for dental patients who are under medical management and follow-up for a thyroid condition even if there are no comorbid conditions. Stress reduction, awareness of drug side effects or interactions, and vigilance for appearance of signs or symptoms of hormone toxicity are among the responsibilities of the oral health care provider.”

          5. 2014: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…

          The same thyroid study which “1875” listed above as #1 under his “more broken bones” studies. Yet further evidence that this clown does not even bother to read even the titles of the junk he copy/pastes, much less the entire studies.

          And now his “environmental studies”

          6. 2014: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm

          This is a study of the effects of fluoride on the pineal gland, brain and bone of goosander (Mergus merganser) and its prey in Odra River estuary in Poland.

          Enough said.

          7. Waterloo

          This is an opinion piece posted on the little activist website, WaterlooWatch. It is evidence of absolutely nothing.

          8. Newsweek

          This is nothing but a link to the biased, erroneous opinion piece by antifluoridationist Douglas Main, well known for his antifluoridation pieces on the dubious online publication “Natural News”. Why the once proud Newsweek has begun plumbing the depths of such shoddy tabloid “journalism” is anybody’s guess. There are so many errors in this piece of Main’s, that it is not even worth discussing.

          9. Jan. 2015

          This is Choi’s study of the effect of elevated levels of fluoride in well-water of a region in China well known for its environmental fluoride pollution. It has no relevance to optimally fluoridated water in the US.

          10. April 2015

          This is a study of the effects of exposure to high levels of fluoride in well-water in China. The control group against which was compared the IQ of the high fluoride areas, lived in an area with water fluoride content of 0.63, nearly precisely the optimal level at which water is fluoridated in the US.

          If anything, this study provides evidence in support of the validity of the level at which water is fluoridated in the US.

          11. Nov. 2015

          This poorly controlled study concludes that children exposed to high levels of fluoride had lower IQ than those in areas with low fluoride exposure. Water is fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.


          Findings of this study suggest that the overall IQ of the children exposed to high fluoride levels in drinking water and hence suffering from dental fluorosis were significantly lower than those of the low fluoride area.”

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            hahahaha. Talking about credibility take a look at Slott’s track record. Slott just makes stuff up. Notice how he provides no evidence – just a lot of bull slott

            Some search hits of Dr Slott.




          • Steven D Slott

            Ahh, the coward “1875” is getting frustrated, yet once again, with the facts and evidence that expose him to be nothing more than an uninformed activist who has no clue as to the irrelevance of the junk he mindlessly copy/pastes from antifluoridationist websites…..not having bothered to even read any of it.

            So, when his ignorance is exposed, what does he do? Attempts to divert attention with lame attempts to discredit me with links to ridiculous nonsense concocted by antifluoridationists. As if this isn’t comical enough, even more comical is that he seriously believes that anyone, including me, cares one iota about nonsense posted about me all over the internet by unscrupulous antifluoridationists.

            Could this clown even be any more ridiculous?

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Steven D Slott

      The coward who snivels behind the pseudonym, “1875” while posting one lie after another, has presented us with a litany of statistics here. While somewhat interesting, they obviously have no relevance to water fluoridation. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of an association of optimally fluoridated water with any of the disorders he lists here, or any others, for that matter….as evidenced by the inability of the coward to provide any such evidence.

      Perhaps he should go slink and cower around a blog on which his stats may be of some relevance.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • 1875

    There is a way to silence the fluoride crazies. Start home water fluoridation with the toxic waste byproduct fluoride given out free for those who want it.

    • Steven D Slott

      Oh, the coward who hides behind the pseudonym, “1875” while posting one lie after another, has demonstrated his ignorance of elementary chemistry here.

      1. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. An atom of fluorine is not a “toxic waste byproduct” of anything.

      2. “Waste” is, by definition, that which is not used productively. Fluoride is utilized productively in numerous areas.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • 1875

        Call it what you want. Give it out free to those who want it.

        • Steven D Slott

          Hopefully the coward “1875” does not control the finances of anyone but himself. If so, they are in deep trouble with his ignorance of economics. First of all, the coward seems not to understand that to “give it out free” requires someone to pay for all that “free” fluoride. That someone will inevitably be taxpayers. Water fluoridation costs less than $1 per person, per year. Fluoride supplements cost more in the range of $1, per person, per day.

          Of course, if the coward means that raw, undiluted fluoridation substances be given out “free”, then he is obviously insane. Raw, undiluted water additives such as chlorine, fluoride, ammonia, and 40 or so other such substances, are made to be handled by water treatment specialists, not by consumers…….not to mention the astromical cost that would be involved in the individual packaging and distribution of such a substance to consumers. Apparently “1875” is fine with wasting taxpayer dollars in such a manner when water fluoridation is far more effective, and far less expensive than would be such an irresponsible scheme.

          This is yet once more example of the total ignorance of water fluoridation exhibited by this clown who cowers behind his pseudonyms.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Notice how the faux professional responds like a grade school bully! Oh, the coward!

          • Steven D Slott

            What’s the matter, “professor”? Frustrated at being corrected? Why don’t you come out from hiding behind your pseudonym and attempt to add something of value to the discussion?

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            Slott has fabricated a strawman. Typical dishonesty.

          • Steven D Slott

            Ahhh, yes, the coward, “1875” yet once again when backed into a corner by facts and evidence, falls back on his old standby………everybody is lying who exposes his nonsense for what it is.

            Truly comical, and so predictable.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • 1875

            no no you only produce lies, Steve. You are the world champion of double standards and twisted logic.

          • Steven D Slott

            Funny that you never seem to be able to produce any documented evidence that I,”produce lies”.’

            Care to come out of hiding behind your pseudonym and produce some evidence to back up your ridiculous nonsense, or prefer to just continue to throw out one lie after another while cowering behind your little barrier? I’m fine either way. Exposing your misinformation and lies keeps me thoroughly entertained.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • johndmac

            “Peer-reviewed science has demonstrated strong evidence that arsenic is an essential nutrient.” – Slott

            Sounds like a lie.

      • Notice how the faux professional responds like a grade school bully! Oh, the coward!

        Sources for this article include:

        (1) http://www.ehjournal.net

        (2) http://www.npr.org

        (3) http://www.cdc.gov


  • LindaRosaRN

    This article is full of misinformation, citing studies and reviews that lack rigor.

    Fluoride — at fluoridation levels — is classified a mineral nutrient. Fluoride is found in almost all ground water, but in varying levels, like some other mineral nutrients, such as calcium and iron. When ingested fluoride can continually remineralize the teeth (via the saliva) which are continually under attack by acid in the mouth. It also helps developing (pre-erupted) teeth become strong — an effect that lasts a lifetime.

    • David Green

      Calling fluoride a nutrient over and over again won’t make it one. Your time would be better spent lobbying the Oxford people to change the definition of a nutrient.

      • Steven D Slott

        David Green, the bottled water and RO filter dealer opines that fluoride is not a nutrient. Hmmm let’s see what other, more reputable and credible sources, have to say:

        “This report focuses on five nutrients—calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride, all of which play a key role in the development and maintenance of bone and other calcified tissues.”

        —-Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1997. Preface.

        “Fluoride is regarded as an essential nutrient now well known to be effective in the maintenance of a tooth enamel that is more resistant to decay.”

        —-Fluoride as a Nutrient
        American Academy of Pediatrics
        Committee on Nutrition
        Pediatrics, vol. 49, No 3, March 1972

        “Fluoride is a normal constituent of the human body, involved in the mineralisation of both teeth and bones (Fairley et al 1983, Varughese & Moreno 1981). The fluoride concentration in bones and teeth is about 10,000 times that in body fluids and soft tissues (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, 1995). Nearly 99% of the body’s fluoride is bound strongly to calcified tissues. Fluoride in bone appears to exist in both rapidly- and slowly-exchangeable pools. Because of its role in the prevention of dental caries, fluoride has been classified as essential to human health (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, FNB:IOM 1997)8”

        —–Australian Government
        National Health and Medical Research Council

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

        • David Green

          I didn’t offer an opinion. My reference is the Oxford Dictionary. That is one source who has no need or interest in providing a sell job to support their definition.

          Hard to believe that the AAP and the IOM would lie about fluoride being essential or playing a “key role in the development and maintenance of bone and other calcified tissues.” but that is the wacky world of desperation in fluoride promotion.
          Do you want to go on the record as saying fluoride is essential or plays a key role in anything?

          • Steven D Slott

            Ahhh, so now David Green claims that the United States Institute of Medicine, and the prestigious American Academy of Pediatrics are lying because they differ with his personal “learned” opinion that fluoride is not a nutrient.

            So, to recap, we have the bottled water and RO filter dealer from Canada:

            1. being okay with the competence of Health Canada when it serms to support the safety of his product, but incompetent when it supports the safety of optimally fluoridated water.

            2. declaring the United States Institute of Medicine and the American Academy of Pediatrics to be liars because these two highly respected healthcare entities differ with his personal opinion that fluoride is not a nutrient. When all else fails, just claim that everyone that disagrees with you is lying and/or corrupt, and keep on spewing nonsense, I suppose.

            Yes, I will go on record as being in full agreement with the opinions of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the United States Institution of Medicine, and the National Health and Medical Council of the Australian Government, in regard to the question of fluoride being a nutrient.

            It was a close call between going with the opinions of those entities over that of the bottled water dealer from Canada, but my instincts told me to stick with them.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • David Green

            “Yes, I will go on record as being in full agreement with the opinions of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the United States Institution of Medicine, and the National Health and Medical Council of the Australian Government, in regard to the question of fluoride being a nutrient”
            And with regards to fluoride being “essential”… ?

          • Steven D Slott

            Sure, I said I am in full agreement with the statements I provided. The Committee on Nutrition, of the American Academy of Pediatrics considers fluoride to be an essential nutrient. The National Health and Medical Research Council of the Australian Government considers fluoride to be an essential nutrient. It’s a close call, but I gotta go with the opinions of those two entities over the personal opinion of bottled water dealer David Green. Yes, of course, I will “go on record” as stating that I am in agreement that fluoride is an essential nutrient.

            That said, it’s a moot point in regard to fluoridation. This public health initiative was never meant to be a replacement of any deficiency of fluoride. It has always been nothing more than the adjustment of the existing level of fluoride in water to that level below the threshold of adverse effects, at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur from a mineral we will ingest water anyway, fluoridated or not.

            It is always fascinating to me that antifluoridationists claim fluoridated water to cause nearly every disease known to man. So what is their “solution”? Remove the benefits received when ingesting it in water, maintain the same “risks” they claim exist from its ingestion, and remove the strict controls which maintain that existing fluoride at a consistent level well below the threshold of adverse effects. That’s some sort of “logic” there……

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • David Fierstien

        David Green, how would you define bpa? Is that a nutrient? When was the last time you checked your water for bpa, and if ever, what were the results? Of course, as you know, the state of Arizona has issued a ban on all bpa-laced plastic food or water containers for children up to the age of 5 years. Do you put warning labels on your bottled water?

        • David Green

          BPA is not a nutrient. We are not required to test for it but Health Canada has tested polycarbonate bottles and found about .5 to 1 ppb. I can give you the link if you want it.

          I notice that you don’t talk too much about THMs, which most consider a bigger problem than either fluoride or BPA. How much of those are in your water? Our city can only get the levels down to an average of 90 ppb or so. How do you deal with drinking water laced with a substance that is known to cause stomach and urinary tract cancers?

          • David Fierstien

            Good question about Total Trihalomethanes & Haloascetic Acids. In the United States all municipalities are mandated to test for both disinfection byproducts.

            I can’t copy & paste here because it’s on a scanned pdf, but here are the results for our most recent samples, taken in August, 2015. And I’m not going to try to spell these things:

            HAA5: Not Detected, Not Detected, Not Detected, Not Detected, 0.002 ppb, Not Detected, 0.002 ppb, Not Detected

            TTHMs: (Units, ppb) 2.2, 1.9, 1.1, and 3.5 ppb.

            EPA limits for TTHMs is 80 ppb, and EPA limits for HAA5 is 60 ppb.

            This is on the Public Record. So you can see, I am very happy to discuss disinfection byproducts with you.

            When was the last time you checked your bottled water for BPA again? For the reader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

          • David Green

            We have never tested our water for BPA. Did I mention before about the testing from 1996 that was done on bottled water stored for 30 days at 80 and 118 degrees F? The water stored at 118 showed 3-4 ppb BPA. The water stored at 80 showed ND at a detection level of 1 ppb. These numbers seem to be consistent with HCs recent testing. Do you have any research suggesting harm at that level or that the amount someone gets from water is a significant in terms of total intake?

            I am assuming that you are drawing water from the Great Lakes which is why your THMs are low. What do you suggest those who use surface sources with organic run-off, like us, do to avoid the risks? In Canada the level allowed is 100 ppb.

          • David Fierstien

            Let me get this straight.

            1.) Your bottled water company Never tests for BPA, despite the fact that some strict legislation is the US prohibits plastic with bpa to be sold if intended for children up to age 5.

            2.) Canada ran some tests about ten years ago on some plastic water bottles, but you can’t cite anything past that?

            3.) Canada has lax legislation on bpa when compared to US standards. Canada prohibits bpa to be used in baby bottles.

            Wow! And you seriously complain about optimally fluoridated water which has not ever harmed anyone, but is a proven health benefit. Unbelievable.

          • David Green

            Not exactly. We don’t test for BPA because there a known amount imparted to water, that Health Canada says is not a concern, and therefore there is no requirement to test for it. I don’t consider .5 to 1 ppb a concern personally but anyone who wishes to buy our water in non-BPA plastic or glass, has options to do so. I am interested in any research suggesting that the amount from water is linked to any health effects, but so far you haven’t given me any.
            The tests done in 1996 were done by a private water company and one of the bottle manufacturers, not HC. You can find the more recent data from HC on their website. The numbers appear to support the earlier testing.
            I don’t know whether Canada has more lax legislation than the US regarding BPA. I think that question is hard to answer because it appears to be a state decision. Health Canada was pretty quick to act in 2008 to ban BPA plastic baby bottles because more BPA is released when the plastic is heated and they gave that rationale at the time. If you are asking whether I trust HC, the answer is no, but I do trust their measurements for BPA levels because I have seen similar numbers elsewhere from people I do trust.

          • Steven D Slott

            So, in other words:

            1. There is no requirement to test for BPA so you don’t do it because you believe the science and the experts who state the levels are safe. There are no requirements for safety testing of fluoride ions which have existed in water forever, which the science and the experts deem to be safe, yet you clamor for tests of this fluoride ion while claiming that the science is invalid and the experts are lying. Hmmmmmm……

            2. Your customers have the option to buy your water in containers with a content more to their liking than what tou offer them in your plastic containers, and you are fine with that. Those in fluoridated areas have the option to obtain their water from sources with a content more to their liking, yet you believe that this is not okay, and that they are somehow being “forced” to drink fluoridated water.

            3. Your product has been tested 9 years ago by a private company, and you are fine with that. Fluoridated water at the tap is held to stringent EPA mandated quality certification requirements which are verified on a specified schedule by an independent testing organization. Yet you believe this to be unsatisfactory and corrupt. Hmmm ……

            4. You claim to not trust Health Canada now that you have been called on your hypocrisy in that area, but the fact remains that you do indeed trust Health Canada, as long as that entity agrees with your own self interests, but you do not trust it when it disagrees with your claims about fluoridated water. Hmmmm…….

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • David Green

            1. No we don’t test for BPA because the amount is known. I am not clamoring for tests of the fluoride ion. I want to see tests on the people who are known to have received a dose sufficient to cause dental fluorosis to see if there are other health effects. I am not claiming the science regarding harm is invalid. I am claiming it is non-existent. You haven’t shown otherwise.
            2. Please tell me where to get a fluoride filter for my corn flakes, soups, and all the other foods that have fluoride in them as the result of being processed with fluoridated water. Makes more sense that those who want fluoride should take a known dose rather than subjecting everyone to a variable and unknown amount.
            3. You are not reading the dates clearly.
            4. It appears you trust HC when they say fluoride is safe but not when they say BPA in bottled water is. How is that different from what you claim I am doing?
            Why do you, David and Randy make so many attempts to put different words in my mouth? Why not just say what you believe or ask specific questions?

          • Steven D Slott

            1. There is no valid scientific evidence of any adverse health effects of people with mild dental fluorosis. There is therefore no reason to “test” these people for anything. Unsubstantiated claims of harm, disseminated by antifluoridationists does not constitute valid scientific evidence.

            2. If you believe the science to be Inadequate, you are certainly free to perform whatever

          • David Green

            You still haven’t given any examples of research that looked for harm and didn’t find any. I doubt that it is out there. If you can’t find any, then any claims of fluoride’s safety are not supportable.
            If there are no variable and unknown amounts of fluoride being ingested, perhaps you could list the quantities you ingested each day for the past week.
            You seem to have forgotten your rant about my selling of water laced with a neurotoxin. Should I assume that your trust of HC extends to their endorsement of PC bottles for bottled water packaging?
            As far as your agreement that fluoride is essential, you now need to back up that claim with clinical evidence that restricting it in the diet leads to a disease. That is the standard way to determine essentiality of “nutrients”.
            Thanks for posting those references from the IOM and the APP. I never would have believed that they would act so dishonestly, although I guess once Steven Levy lied about that, there may be others who are just repeating the same thing. Don’t take this personally, but your country has some pretty messed up institutions. Wasn’t internal corruption the beginning of the end of Rome?

          • Steven D Slott

            1. It is the responsibility of no one to provide “examples of research” to disprove unsubstantiated claims. In order to credibly suddenly demand tests on a public health initiative that has been in effect for 70 years, hundreds of millions of people having benefited, with no proven adverse effects, there must first be valid evidence that a problem exists. There is none. Antifluoridationists are requesting cessation of this initiative. It is therefore their responsibility to produce valid evidence to support their request. They have not.

            2. I live in a fluoridated community. I consume an average of 4 liters of tap water and beverages per day. 0.7 mg/liter X 4 liters = 2.8 mg fluoride from water and beverages per day. The CDC estimates that this constitutes 75% of my daily fluoride intake from all sources. 2.8 mg/75% = 3.733 mg fluoride ingested from all sources per day last week. According to the US IOM, the daily upper limit of my fluoride intake per day before adverse effects is 10 mg. My daily fluoride intake last week was well below half of my daily upper limit.

            3. I don’t rant. I state facts and evidence. I pointed out your hypocrisy in fear-mongering about fluoride while you sell a product which has a known neurotoxin incorporated in it. It’s apples and apples. If you want to fear monger about properties of fluoride without taking concentration into account, then you are being hypocritical by not considering your product dangerous because of the incorporation of a known neurotoxin in it. If you want to consider proper use levels of BPA, in declaring it to be safe, then you must consider the level of fluoride at which water is fluoridated when assessing it, as well. At the optimal level at which water is fluoridated, there are no proven adverse effects.

            3. Yes, you may assume that my trust of HC extends to their endorsement of PC bottles for bottled water packaging. HC is a highly respected healthcare organization. I’m fine with its findings in regard to BPA in your plastic water containers. This does not mean that I don’t hold you accountable for considering fluoride at its proper use levels, just as you want the BPA in your water bottles to be considered at its proper use level. When you fear-monger about properties of fluoride at improper use levels it is entirely fair to do the same with your BPA.

            4. I don’t need to back up my claim that fluoride is an essential nutrient, with anything other than what I have already provided. I have clearly stated and cited the sources on which I have relied for my opinion. You are certainly free to present these organizations with your personal opinion as to what is “the standard way to determine essentiality of ‘nutrients’ “. By your logic, we can never rely on the opinions and recommendations of experts and authorities, instead must must provide our own clinical evidence for every substance we use.

            5. Your unsubstantiated accusation that the United States Institute of Medicine and the American Academy of Pediatrics are “dishonest” and that Steven Levy is a liar is a standard fall-back tactic of antifluoridationists when they are backed into a corner by facts and evidence. It has no merit.

            6. “Internal corruption” in Rome is of no relevance to water fluoridation in North America.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • David Green

            I guess someone should contact the Oxford people and tell them that they need to change their definition. Thanks for admitting that you have no research showing fluoride is essential.

          • Steven D Slott

            “the American Academy of Pediatrics—an organization of 64,000 pediatricians committed to the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults.”


            You are certainly free to base your opinion on a nutritional/healthcare issue on a definition in a dictionary. I prefer to base mine on the opinion of one of the most highly respected healthcare organizations in the world, composed of 64,000 pediatricians.

            I’m fine with the ability of intelligent readers to discern the difference.

            You are certainly free to discuss your questions about research with the AAP, and the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, both of which consider fluoride to be an essential nutrient.

            Perhaps your choice of sources is the reason you remain so uninformed on this issue.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • David Fierstien

            David Green, your quote: “You still haven’t given any examples of research that looked for harm and didn’t find any.”

            Here you go: After claims that drinking fluoridated water affected IQ, “This study aimed to clarify the relationship between community water fluoridation (CWF) and IQ.”

            “Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.”

            Regarding this quote of yours: ” . . any claims of fluoride’s safety are not supportable.”

            Please, David, give me an example of research that looked for the harm in drinking a glass of milk. If you can’t find any, then claims of a glass of milk’s safety are not supportable.

            Really, David, this kind of logic from you? I would have expected better.

          • David Green

            You didn’t give a reference for that quote.

            I haven’t claimed that milk is safe. I have a brother who claims that casein is a difficult protein to digest. I’ll ask him when I see him what he bases that on. I think milk allergies are pretty well accepted, so for those people, it certainly isn’t safe, if you include GI upset as a negative health effect. Just as with fluoride, each person has a different tolerance level.

          • Steven D Slott


            These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.”

            —-Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand
            Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD, J Iaxu, Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
            (Am J Public Health.
            Published online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • David Fierstien


            Well, I stand corrected about milk. You never did say that it is safe. Please show me any research that using a $700 ($500 usd) water filter is safe. If you can’t find any, then claims of a glass of your water filter’s safety are not supportable.

          • David Green

            I haven’t claimed that our RO systems are safe. I have told people that they remove fluoride and other contaminants and shown them lab tests to back that up. I also point out that the design of the 700 dollar one is better than conventional ROs because there is no holding tank to act as a deadhead in the system, but I also point out that any filter can breed bacteria, especially with intermittent use, and that people need to be very careful about how they sanitize the system. I also tell them that I don’t have one in my house for those reasons. We sell almost exclusively water so Steve’s fixation on this piece of equipment is mostly irrelevant.

          • Steven D Slott

            Your financial conflict of interest is irrelevant? Hmm….

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • David Fierstien

            David Green, your quote: “You still haven’t given any examples of research that looked for harm and didn’t find any.”

            Oh look David, here’s a study conducted by Hardy Limeback. He’s one of yours isn’t he? Here he was looking for skeletal problems. The abstract of his study begins:

            “Municipal water fluoridation has notably reduced the incidence of dental caries and is widely considered a public health success.” Wow, David, can you believe that?

            “Analysis of our data suggests that the variability in heterogenous urban populations may be too high for the effects, if any, of low-level fluoride administration on skeletal tissue to be discerned.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20858781

            So I guess you could call this study, by Hardy Limeback, an example of research that looked for harm and didn’t find any? Hey, that’s exactly what you asked for, isn’t it.

          • David Green

            The reason I suspected you were drawing from the Great Lakes is that they have lower THM levels because of less organic matter(like leaves) per volume in the raw water compared to a river surrounded by a forest. The other factor is that the river temperature is much warmer during the summer so more chlorine is needed.
            Last time I heard Toronto had about 15 ppb TTHMs. Peterborough used to be about 200 and Ottawa 300 back when the Canadian standard was 350. The US was 100 back then. I wouldn’t be too happy about your operator trying to get by with marginal amounts of chlorine. You know about Walkerton right?

          • David Fierstien

            With well water, chlorination isn’t necessarily mandated. Therefore, as long as there is a minimum chlorine residual, and as long as the several monthly bacti samples come back clean, there is no problem.

            With surface water, which would include water taken from the Great Lakes, chlorination is mandatory. I think larger water distribution system might have more of a problem as more chlorine would be added at injection points than would be necessary for smaller systems.

          • David Green

            Yes I guess the advantage of using wells is that the temperature doesn’t vary with the time of year. What is the natural fluoride level in your water and is it the same for all wells?
            One thing that has always worried me about municipal distribution systems is that there are always going to be deadheads. When we moved into our building it only had a 1″ service. We put in a 4″ line, in a different location, and the 1″ inch line was closed off, but not right at the main. The shut-off was about 20 ft in from the main, leaving that length of a deadhead. It can never be flushed. Then there is our 6″ sprinkler line which only gets flushed once a year. That is a lot of water just sitting in the line and mixing a little with the water going by in the main.
            I feel a little safer drinking our BPA laced distilled water.

          • David Fierstien

            Natural fluoride level in my municipality which has 3 wells varies between 0.11 – 0.18. It’s fairly consistent & the natural level is checked once per month. The distribution system is checked for fluoride from 7 points once per day.

            Beautiful Boyne City which lies on the banks of lovely Lake Charlevoix, about 6 miles from my City, has a natural fluoride level of 0.35. They have 2 well fields and fluoridate their water.

            And Historic and Scenic Petoskey, on the shores of the Majestic Lake Michigan, about 20 miles away from me, also uses groundwater as its supply. The natural level of fluoride there is 1.52 ppm, which is more than twice the optimal level of 0.7 ppm.

            The odd thing about Petoskey is that from all the anti-fluoride scare-mongering, you would think the streets would be filled with arthritic, low-IQ’d zombies with calcified pineal glands & thyroid’s hanging out their ears. Actually, the contrary is true. Only beautiful people get to live there.

            Regarding the 1″ main to your building, there would also be a shutoff at the main. If it is a biting concern to you, you could request your municipality to dig it up, shut it off at the corp, and remove the line. They probably won’t do it, but you can ask. (I did the math on your 20′ x 1″ line and I got 0.01457 gallons of dead-ended water connected to a chlorinated water main. That’s why your municipal water is chlorinated, for that very reason.

            Regarding your 6″ line to your sprinkler system, doesn’t that get flushed every time the grass is watered? Wouldn’t that be on some kind of timer? And if you have a sprinkler system, you should also have a back flow preventing device to eliminate the possibility of that water getting back into the distribution system. Make sure you have a back-flow peventer. If you don’t have one, get one and sue your plumber.

            One more thing, you can get a simple Hach chlorine test kit for about $50. You will want to check for free chlorine residual, and you will want to see just a little, little tiny bit. 0.2, in my mind is perfect, but the MDEQ prefers to see at least 0.4ppm.

            (Once in a while I indulge myself and have a bottle of bpa-laced water too. It’s kind of like sneaking a cigarette. I doubt I will fully regret it until I have a tumor growing out of my spleen.)

          • David Green

            Well thanks for the information and making me laugh a little. I am not sure what “beautiful people” refers to. Is it a reference to what Bill Mass said in Wichita about people thinking teeth showing fluorosis were beautiful? Has anyone measured the IQs or looked at the thyroid function of the residents, especially those who were fed formula made with the tap water?

            The sprinkler line I mentioned is the fire protection sprinkler and it does have a back-flow preventer. It gets tested once a year as do the other 3 we have on our main water lines. The problem with the wet sprinkler system that we have is that every time you flush it, new water with oxygen gets in and that causes corrosion, according to my plumber, so he says it is better not to flush them at all. I have talked to the utility about the deadhead issue and they acknowledge that it is an issue but don’t suggest a way to deal with it. They would have to dig up the street at a substantial cost to somebody.

            I have a chlorine residual test kit but I don’t regularly monitor the city water. I know the levels are higher since Walkerton because the owner of my plumbing store explained that I needed the new toilet tank flapper which is more resistant to chlorine, after I commented that the one I put in two years earlier had already failed.

          • Steven D Slott

            In regard to your fear-mongering about dental fluorosis, and reference to a statement by Maas:

            1. “Results: Two hundred forty-two children (43.0 percent) had 0 decayed, missing, and filled primary and permanent tooth surface (dmfs/DMFS), while 170 (23.9 percent) had 5+ dmfs/DMFS. The prevalence of TF scores 1, 2, and 3 were 14.5, 9.5, and 1.9 percent, respectively. The proportion of children/parents rating OH as Excellent/Very good was significantly associated with children’s caries experience. That proportion increased when fluorosis severity increased from a TF score of 0 to 2, but decreased with a TF of 3. Having low caries experience and better dental appearance were associated with parents’ perception of good OH. Having mild fluorosis and more acceptable appearance were significant factors for children’s perception of good OH. Caries and malocclusion were associated with lower OHRQoL, while having a TF score of 2 was associated with better OHRQoL in multivariate models for overall CPQ/PPQ scores.”

            “Conclusion: Caries and less acceptable appearance showed a negative impact, while mild fluorosis had a positive impact on child and parental OHRQoL.”

            —-Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of Children by Dental Caries and Fluorosis Experience
            Loc G. Do PhD* andA. Spencer PhD
            Article first published online: 10 AUG 2007
            DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2007.00036.x

            2. “The objectives of this study were to determine the impact of enamel fluorosis and dental caries on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in North Carolina schoolchildren and their families.”

            “A child’s caries experience negatively affects OHRQoL, while fluorosis has little impact.”

            —-J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):972-9. doi: 10.1177/0022034514548705. Epub 2014 Aug 25.
            Effects of enamel fluorosis and dental caries on quality of life.
            Onoriobe U1, Rozier RG2, Cantrell J3, King RS4.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Steven D Slott

            So, you’re fine with the competence of Health Canada when it seems to support the safety of your product, but not so when it supports the safety of optimally fluoridated water?


            Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • johndmac

    In unfluoridated areas, 3 year olds are often prescribed 0.25 mg of fluoride per day. Sodium Fluoride Chewable Tablets come with “Important safety information: Do not exceed the dose recommended by your doctor or dentist.”

    In ‘optimally’ fluoridated areas, that same 0.25 mg dose of fluoride is consumed with every 12 ounces of tap water that a person drinks.

    What is it about OVERDOSING INFANTS WITH FLUORIDE that you rabid fluoroholics commenting here don’t understand?

  • This post is actually for those who are reading these comments and wondering whether the fear-based propaganda of FOs should be believed. Short answer – NO

    Long answer – Let’s examine the logic of fluoridation opponents (FOs):

    1 – FOs claim that fluoride ions are a toxic, unapproved drug, adjusting fluoride levels to 0.7 ppm in drinking water is illegal, forced mass medication, optimal fluoridation levels are liable to cause significant negative health effects in a population and everyone should be able to make their own decisions whether or not to ingest a poisonous byproduct of the fertilizer industry.

    2 – FOs claim that fluoridation is ineffective at preventing dental decay in a community, and/or that any potential benefits are far outweighed by the proven risks of harm.

    3 – FOs claim that fluoridation at optimal levels can cause significant health problems. Fluoride Action Network website states that, “Fluoride is a highly toxic substance that can cause a range of adverse health effects.” The site lists the following adverse health effects expected from exposure to low or moderate levels of fluoride ions (levels to which individuals in fluoridated communities would be exposed): arthritis; increased bone fracture rates; reduced IQ; brain damage (neurobehavioral defects and impaired fetal brain development); cancer (bone, bladder and lung); various cardiovascular diseases (hypertension, arterial calcification, arteriosclerosis and electrocardiogram abnormalities); significant dental fluorosis (noticeable brown stains on the teeth); diabetes; kidney disease; reduction in sperm quality and testosterone levels; accelerated sexual maturation in females; and hypothyroidism. A video, Our Daily Dose, emphases these claims by highlighting children playing while outlining the litany of horrors they and their parents can expect from drinking fluoridated water.

    4 – FOs claim:
    — that over 70 years of scientific evidence actually proves that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing dental caries and causes the health issues listed above.
    — the evidence against fluoridation is overwhelming, unambiguous, conclusive and readily available for anyone to evaluate.
    — the scientific evidence in support of fluoridation is poor quality, weak or nonexistent.
    — it is meaningless that that over 100 national and international health organizations support fluoridation as safe and effective.

    5 – Companies were so desperate to get rid of HFA, that they convinced dentists in dental school that it was good for people’s teeth and we, being gullible little soldiers with miniature Black & Decker drills in our hands, blindly followed the pied piper. This claim was contributed by Pediatric Dentist, Johnny Johnson – he was there…

    If ANY of these five claims were valid, fluoridation would, indeed, be completely reprehensible. No sane, competent scientist or medical professional with a conscious would endorse an ineffective, blatantly dangerous practice.

    AND YET, over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their thousands of members – experts in their fields ) as well as six Surgeons General since 1982 DO SUPPORT the practice of fluoridation as a safe and effective public health policy to reduce dental decay and resulting health problems. These organizations include The World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.

    Ask FOs to explain this FACT. I have asked repeatedly, and the replies have provided an interesting window into the FOs’ belief system.

    Why, in spite of the alleged overwhelming evidence against fluoridation, would the American Academy of Pediatrics (with over 62,000 members) – an organization committed to protecting and improving the health of children – make this statement, “Water fluoridation continues to be one of the most important tools in our toolbox to prevent tooth decay in children and adults. Hundreds of studies have affirmed community water fluoridation as a safe, equitable, and cost-effective way to protect the oral health of the population.”??

    Logically, why would the membership not question this statement (or initiate a mutiny) if they had any concerns?

    I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation…. Except perhaps that the overwhelming majority of experts in the fields of science, dentistry and medicine are correct in their interpretation of the evidence and fluoridation is, IN FACT a safe and effective health initiative.

    • CllrChris

      Randy – you are looking at the issue the wrong way around. The question
      you pose is reasonable – whether any of those 5 claims had
      validity.Then you leap to a conclusion that the people who are paid to
      “know” claim the 5 claims are rubbish then you are happy to go along
      with that. That’s a lazy perverse attitude and, if I might say so, a
      pathetic cop out. Why these various health/science professionals might
      think fluoridation is wonderful is a whole different subject area for a
      different type of debate.

      What you should be doing is examining
      the various aspects of the claims, looking to the facts and the evidence
      which is available – and not what others claim. Otherwise all you get
      is a load of people who haven’t much of a clue endorsing and
      re-endorsing claims made from god knows where.

      For the record, I
      have to say that have looked at the background to some of these claims
      and I find the information provided by FAN and those very many studies
      that question fluoridation policy far more convincing than the strident,
      and yet very poorly substantiated, reassurances provided by various
      public bodies, who should know better how to present a scientific

  • FalseFlag

    Fluoride, that most monstrous of commie plots. Thank God we Oregonian’s have had the good sense to keep it out of our precious bodily fluids.