By Laura Turner Seydel

A hot topic, yet something rarely discussed, is the fluoride found in our Atlanta water supply.  When first introduced into our water stream in 1969, as required by Georgia law, people hailed fluoride as a positive addition to improve dental hygiene.

However, today, many national organizations, like the Fluoride Action Network (flouridealert.org) are working to heighten public awareness of the toxicity of fluoride and its potential negative health effects. Among these are kidney and thyroid problems and, more frequently occurring, dental fluorosis, which leaves teeth brown, stained or even indented when over exposed to fluoride.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the standard for drinking water quality and began community water fluoridation in 1945.  While the Center for Disease Control (CDC) ensures that the levels of fluoride are not harmful, groups like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) have conducted scientific studies that have raised concerns that fluoride added to tap water may present unreasonable health risks. Also cause for alarm, the state of California has classified 791 chemicals as “hazardous waste,” 39 of which are fluoride compounds.

While we should all worry about the potential dangers of ingesting too much fluoride, infants and children are at a higher risk since they are in critical stages of development. It’s important to condition your family to filter all tap water, especially when they’re young.  Often time parents will mix formula with tap water, not realizing they are adding fluoride, so Gerber has developed PURE Water that is safe for children and parents can safely mix with formula or infant cereal without the worry of unnecessary toxic exposure from fluoride.

It’s been said that 1 in 4 people will develop some form of dental fluorosis, so it’s important to be conscious of the fluoride we ingest on a daily basis. Avoiding tap water in its purest form is the easiest way to begin taking a stand against fluoride, but it’s important to familiarize yourself with FAN and learn about where else fluoride can be found in your everyday life.

For more information about fluoridation, visit www.cdc.gov/fluordination/ or for more eco-living tips, visit: www.lauraseydel.com.

Collin Kelley

Collin Kelley has been the editor of Atlanta Intown for two decades and has been a journalist and freelance writer for 35 years. He’s also an award-winning poet and novelist.

20 replies on “Green Insider: Fluorinating Atlanta’s Tap Water”

  1. More than 3100 professionals (including over 280 dentists) urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

    Also, eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.

    Approximately, 80 US communities rejected fluoridation since 2008. The CDC reports that 225 less communities adjusted for fluoride between 2006 and 2008.

    The Fluoride Action Network is working with Dr. Mercola to educate legislators about the health hazards associated with water fluoridation which isn’t revealed to them by those lobbying in favor of fluoridation: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/03/paul-connett-interview.aspx

  2. More than 3100 professionals (including over 280 dentists) urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

    Also, eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.

    Approximately, 80 US communities rejected fluoridation since 2008. The CDC reports that 225 less communities adjusted for fluoride between 2006 and 2008.

    The Fluoride Action Network is working with Dr. Mercola to educate legislators about the health hazards associated with water fluoridation which isn’t revealed to them by those lobbying in favor of fluoridation: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/03/paul-connett-interview.aspx

  3. The negative data Fluoride Action Network is actually mostly government data and peer reviewed from all over the world. The CDC Oral Health division is a promotion arm and does not even have a toxicologist to evaluate risks. They promote the ADA belief system that some ingested benefit exists. The CDC knows any benefit is really topical posteruptive from much higher levels just like toothpaste. The 1999 MMWR admitted this fact but not to the public yet. In the same publication they claimed it was one of the top 10 public health policies after admitting it was ineffective. We live in a strange world.
    Far greater numbers of blacks are damaged by fluoride which was known from the first study in Grand Rapids in 1945. Russell 1962 showed this double damage. CDC data still shows it especially for the ugliest moderate and severe worst damage. Univ of Mich Burt 2007 showed Detroit with almost 100% of children with caries by age 5. This is typical in poor black inner cities almost all fluoridated for 5 or more decades.Burt also in 2009 showed blacks had significantly more fluoride intake..The 2006 NRC showed damage is far more likely the legacy of fluoridation. The CDC even after 2007 ethics charges still refuses to warn even those at greatest risk. Most health departments refuse to warn about infant formula big risk with fluoride water. Many baby foods products are more fluoride toxic like baby chicken and some fruit juices. Many cereals have more fluoride then city water. Go to Fluoride Action to see the government data of risk. Spots on My teeth has documented this damage in the Atlanta area. Take a peek if you want to see the range of possible damage. Remember blacks are damaged more often and severely but not warned. 1991 Augusta Ga study showed 80% were damaged and 14% had the worst moderate and severe at 1ppm claimed optimal dose. This should be a front page warning. Tough questions have been avoided with blind promotion by the CDC instead.
    As a footnote dental incomes have soared with the skyrocketing cosmetic repairs. Most dentists flat refuse to treat poor kids on medicaid. 80% of the cavities happen to 25% of the kids. Most poor kids dentists refuse to see. Medicaid pays too little and ugly red tape is common. Read the Pew Center data that proves this true county by county for the whole US.

  4. The negative data Fluoride Action Network is actually mostly government data and peer reviewed from all over the world. The CDC Oral Health division is a promotion arm and does not even have a toxicologist to evaluate risks. They promote the ADA belief system that some ingested benefit exists. The CDC knows any benefit is really topical posteruptive from much higher levels just like toothpaste. The 1999 MMWR admitted this fact but not to the public yet. In the same publication they claimed it was one of the top 10 public health policies after admitting it was ineffective. We live in a strange world.
    Far greater numbers of blacks are damaged by fluoride which was known from the first study in Grand Rapids in 1945. Russell 1962 showed this double damage. CDC data still shows it especially for the ugliest moderate and severe worst damage. Univ of Mich Burt 2007 showed Detroit with almost 100% of children with caries by age 5. This is typical in poor black inner cities almost all fluoridated for 5 or more decades.Burt also in 2009 showed blacks had significantly more fluoride intake..The 2006 NRC showed damage is far more likely the legacy of fluoridation. The CDC even after 2007 ethics charges still refuses to warn even those at greatest risk. Most health departments refuse to warn about infant formula big risk with fluoride water. Many baby foods products are more fluoride toxic like baby chicken and some fruit juices. Many cereals have more fluoride then city water. Go to Fluoride Action to see the government data of risk. Spots on My teeth has documented this damage in the Atlanta area. Take a peek if you want to see the range of possible damage. Remember blacks are damaged more often and severely but not warned. 1991 Augusta Ga study showed 80% were damaged and 14% had the worst moderate and severe at 1ppm claimed optimal dose. This should be a front page warning. Tough questions have been avoided with blind promotion by the CDC instead.
    As a footnote dental incomes have soared with the skyrocketing cosmetic repairs. Most dentists flat refuse to treat poor kids on medicaid. 80% of the cavities happen to 25% of the kids. Most poor kids dentists refuse to see. Medicaid pays too little and ugly red tape is common. Read the Pew Center data that proves this true county by county for the whole US.

  5. Isn’t it strange, in the U.S., doctors cannot force one person to take a drug, yet the government wants to put it in our drinking water and force everyone to be drugged with fluoride, a prescription drug, against their will and with no medical supervision, no control over how much you consume and no treatment for side effects.
    The fluoridation of drinking water is one of the cruelest hoaxes ever perpetrated against the public in the history of mankind. Fluoride used is actually an industrial waste product from the manufacture of fertilizer and aluminum, and is second to mercury as the most toxic substance known. It contains lead, arsenic, mercury, radium, and other contaminants. Most of Europe (16 countries) has rejected fluoridation and is 98% fluoride free. and the WHO reports that they have a better tooth decay rate than any fluoridated country.
    There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that drinking fluoridated water has any effect on cavity reduction — NONE! The best source for information on the health hazards and ineffectiveness of fluoridation can be found here: (www.fluoridealert.org).

  6. Isn’t it strange, in the U.S., doctors cannot force one person to take a drug, yet the government wants to put it in our drinking water and force everyone to be drugged with fluoride, a prescription drug, against their will and with no medical supervision, no control over how much you consume and no treatment for side effects.
    The fluoridation of drinking water is one of the cruelest hoaxes ever perpetrated against the public in the history of mankind. Fluoride used is actually an industrial waste product from the manufacture of fertilizer and aluminum, and is second to mercury as the most toxic substance known. It contains lead, arsenic, mercury, radium, and other contaminants. Most of Europe (16 countries) has rejected fluoridation and is 98% fluoride free. and the WHO reports that they have a better tooth decay rate than any fluoridated country.
    There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that drinking fluoridated water has any effect on cavity reduction — NONE! The best source for information on the health hazards and ineffectiveness of fluoridation can be found here: (www.fluoridealert.org).

  7. 1) Fluoridation: Not Safe at 1 ppm!

    From the California Dental Association Executive Bulletin, January 12, 2010:

    “Specifically, ADA granted CDA $200,000 to assist in our effort to prevent the placement of “fluoride and its salts” on the List of Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity that is produced by the State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) requires the governor to publish this list of toxic chemicals each year. OEHHA is currently considering fluoride and its salts for inclusion in the Proposition 65 listing. A determination is expected within the next 13 months.”

    Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer) and Fluoridation
    Caffey (1955) noted that the age, sex, and anatomical distribution of the cortical bone defects observed in the Kingston-Newburgh fluoridation trial were “strikingly” similar to that of osteogenic sarcoma. There was no follow up study.
    Cohn (1992). The New Jersey Department of Health conducted a study of osteosarcoma occurrence in seven Central New Jersey counties. The study finds a statistically significant relationship between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma among males less than 20 years old.
    Bassin (2001). A Doctoral Thesis from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine analyzed data from a large case control study of fluoride and osteosarcoma. A robust, statistically-significant relation (7 times increase) was found between consumption of fluoridated water during the childhood growth spurt (ages 6-8) and osteosarcoma among boys less than age 20.
    Bassin (2006) Above age-specific work published in Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8. Among boys less than age 20 who consumed water with 0.3 to 0.99 ppm fluoride between ages 6-8, the risk of osteosarcoma was five times greater than for boys drinking nonfluoridated water. At 1 ppm or more, the risk was seven times greater.

    Takahashi K et al. (2001) Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 11, No. 4 July. From the abstract:
    Age-specific and age-standardized rates (ASR) of registered cancers for nine communities in the U.S.A. (21.8 million inhabitants, mainly whites) were obtained from IARC data (1978-82, 1983-87, 1988-92). The percentage of people supplied with “optimally” fluoridated drinking water (FD) obtained from the Fluoridation Census 1985, U.S.A. were used for regression analysis of incidence rates of cancers at thirty six sites (ICD-WHO, 1957). About two-thirds of sites of the body (ICD) were associated positively with FD. Cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-billiary and urinary organs were positively associated with FD. This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. The likelihood of fluoride acting as a genetic cause of cancer requires consideration.

    New Scientist Jan. 22, 1981.
    Hydrogen bonding is a weak interaction that holds molecules together. They make and break easily and this is what makes them so versatile – indeed the hydrogen bonds formed between amides (the links between amino acids) are the most important weak hydrogen bonds in biological systems. That these can be disrupted by fluoride in the formation of much stronger bonds may explain how the chemically inert fluoride ion could interfere in the healthy operation of living systems. Thus some of the serious charges that are being laid at its door – genetic damage, birth defects, cancer and allergy response – may arise from fluoride interference after all.

    Hip Fracture and Fluoridation
    Fluoride is incorporated more readily into mineralizing new bone rather than existing bone. Thus, adults retain about 50 percent of ingested fluoride whereas infants and children retain 87 percent. When fluoride substitutes the hydroxyl ion in the crystal lattice of bone, it makes bone more brittle and diminishes tensile strength. The link between fluoridated water and hip fracture:
    1a) Cooper C, et al. (1990). J of Epidemiology and Community Health 44:17-19.
    1b) Cooper C, et al. (1991). J American Medical Asso. 266:513-514.
    2) Danielson C, et al. (1992). J American Medical Asso. 268: 746-748
    3) Hegmann KT, et al. (2000). American Journal of Epidemiology P. S18.
    4) Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1992). Annals of Epidemiology 2: 617-626.
    5) Jacobsen SJ, et al. 1990). J American Medical Asso. 264(4): 500-2.
    6a) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1995). J American Medical Asso. 273: 775-776 (letter).
    6b) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1998). Epidemiology 9(4): 417-423.
    7) Keller C. (1991) Osteoporosis International 2: 1109-117.
    8) Kurttio PN, et al. (1999) American J of Epidemiology 150(8): 817-824.
    9) May DS, Wilson MG. (1992). Osteoporosis International 2:109-117.

    Fluoridated Water and the Brain
    Varner JA et al. Brain Research 784, 284-298 (1998). Twenth-seven rats were divided into three groups and for one year were given either distilled water, distilled water with 2.1 ppm NaF – the same concentration of fluoride normally used in fluoridated drinking water – or distilled water with 0.5 ppm AlF3. In both treated groups, the aluminum levels in the brain were elevated relative to controls. The researchers speculate that fluoride in water may complex with the aluminum in food and enable it to cross the blood-brain barrier. Both treated groups also suffered neural injury and showed increased deposits of B-amyloid protein in the brain, similar to those seen in humans with Alzheimer’s disease. “While the small amount of ALF3 …required for neurotoxic effects is surprising, perhaps even more surprising are the neurotoxic effects of NaF” at 2.1 ppm, the authors write.

    Masters R.D., Coplan M.J. et al. NeuroToxicology 21(6): 1091-1100. (2000) From the abstract:
    Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. The tests are part of a sample collected by the New York State Department of Children’s Health, mostly from 1994-1998. Fluoridation status was determined from the CDC 1992 Fluoridation Census. For every age/race group, there was consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. The highest likelihood of children having VBL greater than the danger level of 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood occurs when they are both exposed to SiF treated water and likely to be subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead. Results are consistent with prior analyses of surveys of children’s blood lead in Massachusetts and NHANES III.

    Chronic Kidney Disease and Fluoridation
    The kidneys are exposed to significant amounts of fluoride as they try to eliminate it from the body. At risk of retaining harmful levels of fluoride are the 16.8 % of U.S. population aged 20 years and over who have Chronic Kidney Disease (2004 NHANES). Formerly a proponent of fluoridation, the National Kidney Foundation wrote on April 15, 2008, “The 1981 NKF position paper on fluoridation is outdated. The paper is withdrawn and will no longer be circulated.”

    Maureen Jones, Archivist – Citizens for Safe Drinking Water – http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org
    maureenj@pacbell.net (408) 297-8487 Fluoride Action Network – http://www.FluorideAlert.org

    2) Fluoride: Not Effective at 1 ppm!

    Fluoridation has historically been “sold” to politicians and civic leaders by using photos of rampant Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup Tooth Decay (BBTD), a highly visible decay of the upper front teeth. The cause of the decay is high levels of strep mutan bacteria. Fluoridated water at 1 ppm does not kill this bacteria that, 1) colonize on tooth surfaces, 2) thrive and multiply on sugars, and 3) pass their acidic waste onto the dental enamel causing the damage we call tooth decay.

    50 percent of U.S. Head Start children have Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup tooth decay from high levels of strep mutans bacteria. A steady source of sugar is supplied to the bacteria by sipping fluids rather than drinking fluids from a cup. The bacteria’s acidic waste first ravages the primary teeth and then continues on to decay the permanent teeth.

    In January 2000, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Senior Risk Assessment Scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis, reviewed the 1993-94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment for the City of Escondido (Keepers-of-the-Well.org, #17 Effectiveness) and stated in her critique:

    1) For preschool children, … any evaluation of the effectiveness of various measures (fluoridation) must control for the occurrence of BBTD and,

    2) Any study of the effectiveness of a particular measure (fluoridation) in preventing dental caries must control for the presence of dental sealants, or the results will be meaningless. and,

    3) In addition, if children with BBTD are thought to be more prone to developing caries in permanent teeth, then history of BBTD vs. caries incidence should be examined for both preschool and elementary children.

    The dental literature is clear that elementary school children with a history of BBTD are indeed more prone to decay in permanent teeth. Therefore, controlling or adjusting for history of BBTD in elementary school children should be the norm but is never done! By not adjusting for BBTD history and sealants, dental studies of school children can claim a (false) fluoridation benefit!
    _______________

    J H Shaw. “Causes of Dental Caries; Microbial Agents” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 317 No 16, Oct. 15, 1987.

    When rats are delivered by cesarean section and maintained under sterile conditions, they can be kept in a germ-free state for generations. Carious lesions do not develop when germ-free rats are fed a caries-producing diet.

    Bacteriocin typing of S. mutans has indicated that the mother is a major source of oral infection in her infant. …When all carious lesions in pregnant women were restored and they followed good dietary practices, their salivary S. mutans counts decreased to low levels. When these low counts were maintained during their infants’ early lives, their salivary counts of S. mutans were also low and they acquired fewer carious lesions than other children of comparable age. When children in the same study became infected with S. mutans before the age of two years, they had approximately eight times as many carious lesions as children in whom S. mutans was not detected until the age of four.

    Auge, K. Denver Post Medical Writer. Doctors donate services to restore little girl’s smile. The Denver Post, April 13, 2004. (Note: Denver, CO has been fluoridated since 1954.)
    “Sippy cups are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents’ propensity to
    let toddlers bed down with the cups, filled with juice or milk. The result is a sort of
    sleep-over party for mouth bacteria,” said pediatric dentist Dr. Barbara Hymer as she
    applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6-year-old with decayed upper teeth. Dr.
    Brad Smith, a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his practice treats up to 300 cases a
    year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries. Last year, Children’s Hospital did
    2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed from the condition, Smith said, and
    it is especially pervasive among children in poor families.

    Shiboski CH et al. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter 2003.
    Among 2,520 children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping
    milk/sweet substance was among Latinos/Hispanics (72% among Head Start and 65%
    among non-HS) and HS Asians (56%). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant decay
    rates respectively; Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not
    children lived in an area with fluoridated water.

    Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children. Public Health Reports; 107: 167-73, 1992.
    By either of the two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three of the four maxillary incisors, the rate for 5-year-olds was significantly higher than for 3-year-olds. Children attending centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the total sample or other variables.

    Kelly M et al. The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American
    Populations. J Pub Health Dent; 47:94-97, 1987.
    The prevalence of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from 17 to 85 percent with a mean of 53%. The surveyed communities had a mixture of fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking water sources. Regardless of water fluoridation, the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites surveyed.

    “Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures (grooves), mainly on the chewing surfaces of the back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay in U.S. children in 1986-87.”
    Selected Findings and Recommendations from the 1993/94 CA Oral Health Needs Assessment.

    “Because the surface-specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the remaining decay is found in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of children’s teeth; those surfaces that are not as affected by the protective benefit of fluoride.”
    Letter, August 8, 2000, from Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., CDC Atlanta GA.

    “Nearly 90 percent of cavities in school children occur in the surfaces of teeth with vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective.”
    Facts From National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall, MN, 5/92.
    _______________________
    Maureen Jones, Archivist – Citizens for Safe Drinking Water – http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org
    maureenj@pacbell.net (408) 297-8487 Fluoride Action Network – http://www.FluorideAlert.org

  8. 1) Fluoridation: Not Safe at 1 ppm!

    From the California Dental Association Executive Bulletin, January 12, 2010:

    “Specifically, ADA granted CDA $200,000 to assist in our effort to prevent the placement of “fluoride and its salts” on the List of Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity that is produced by the State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) requires the governor to publish this list of toxic chemicals each year. OEHHA is currently considering fluoride and its salts for inclusion in the Proposition 65 listing. A determination is expected within the next 13 months.”

    Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer) and Fluoridation
    Caffey (1955) noted that the age, sex, and anatomical distribution of the cortical bone defects observed in the Kingston-Newburgh fluoridation trial were “strikingly” similar to that of osteogenic sarcoma. There was no follow up study.
    Cohn (1992). The New Jersey Department of Health conducted a study of osteosarcoma occurrence in seven Central New Jersey counties. The study finds a statistically significant relationship between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma among males less than 20 years old.
    Bassin (2001). A Doctoral Thesis from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine analyzed data from a large case control study of fluoride and osteosarcoma. A robust, statistically-significant relation (7 times increase) was found between consumption of fluoridated water during the childhood growth spurt (ages 6-8) and osteosarcoma among boys less than age 20.
    Bassin (2006) Above age-specific work published in Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8. Among boys less than age 20 who consumed water with 0.3 to 0.99 ppm fluoride between ages 6-8, the risk of osteosarcoma was five times greater than for boys drinking nonfluoridated water. At 1 ppm or more, the risk was seven times greater.

    Takahashi K et al. (2001) Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 11, No. 4 July. From the abstract:
    Age-specific and age-standardized rates (ASR) of registered cancers for nine communities in the U.S.A. (21.8 million inhabitants, mainly whites) were obtained from IARC data (1978-82, 1983-87, 1988-92). The percentage of people supplied with “optimally” fluoridated drinking water (FD) obtained from the Fluoridation Census 1985, U.S.A. were used for regression analysis of incidence rates of cancers at thirty six sites (ICD-WHO, 1957). About two-thirds of sites of the body (ICD) were associated positively with FD. Cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-billiary and urinary organs were positively associated with FD. This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. The likelihood of fluoride acting as a genetic cause of cancer requires consideration.

    New Scientist Jan. 22, 1981.
    Hydrogen bonding is a weak interaction that holds molecules together. They make and break easily and this is what makes them so versatile – indeed the hydrogen bonds formed between amides (the links between amino acids) are the most important weak hydrogen bonds in biological systems. That these can be disrupted by fluoride in the formation of much stronger bonds may explain how the chemically inert fluoride ion could interfere in the healthy operation of living systems. Thus some of the serious charges that are being laid at its door – genetic damage, birth defects, cancer and allergy response – may arise from fluoride interference after all.

    Hip Fracture and Fluoridation
    Fluoride is incorporated more readily into mineralizing new bone rather than existing bone. Thus, adults retain about 50 percent of ingested fluoride whereas infants and children retain 87 percent. When fluoride substitutes the hydroxyl ion in the crystal lattice of bone, it makes bone more brittle and diminishes tensile strength. The link between fluoridated water and hip fracture:
    1a) Cooper C, et al. (1990). J of Epidemiology and Community Health 44:17-19.
    1b) Cooper C, et al. (1991). J American Medical Asso. 266:513-514.
    2) Danielson C, et al. (1992). J American Medical Asso. 268: 746-748
    3) Hegmann KT, et al. (2000). American Journal of Epidemiology P. S18.
    4) Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1992). Annals of Epidemiology 2: 617-626.
    5) Jacobsen SJ, et al. 1990). J American Medical Asso. 264(4): 500-2.
    6a) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1995). J American Medical Asso. 273: 775-776 (letter).
    6b) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1998). Epidemiology 9(4): 417-423.
    7) Keller C. (1991) Osteoporosis International 2: 1109-117.
    8) Kurttio PN, et al. (1999) American J of Epidemiology 150(8): 817-824.
    9) May DS, Wilson MG. (1992). Osteoporosis International 2:109-117.

    Fluoridated Water and the Brain
    Varner JA et al. Brain Research 784, 284-298 (1998). Twenth-seven rats were divided into three groups and for one year were given either distilled water, distilled water with 2.1 ppm NaF – the same concentration of fluoride normally used in fluoridated drinking water – or distilled water with 0.5 ppm AlF3. In both treated groups, the aluminum levels in the brain were elevated relative to controls. The researchers speculate that fluoride in water may complex with the aluminum in food and enable it to cross the blood-brain barrier. Both treated groups also suffered neural injury and showed increased deposits of B-amyloid protein in the brain, similar to those seen in humans with Alzheimer’s disease. “While the small amount of ALF3 …required for neurotoxic effects is surprising, perhaps even more surprising are the neurotoxic effects of NaF” at 2.1 ppm, the authors write.

    Masters R.D., Coplan M.J. et al. NeuroToxicology 21(6): 1091-1100. (2000) From the abstract:
    Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. The tests are part of a sample collected by the New York State Department of Children’s Health, mostly from 1994-1998. Fluoridation status was determined from the CDC 1992 Fluoridation Census. For every age/race group, there was consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. The highest likelihood of children having VBL greater than the danger level of 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood occurs when they are both exposed to SiF treated water and likely to be subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead. Results are consistent with prior analyses of surveys of children’s blood lead in Massachusetts and NHANES III.

    Chronic Kidney Disease and Fluoridation
    The kidneys are exposed to significant amounts of fluoride as they try to eliminate it from the body. At risk of retaining harmful levels of fluoride are the 16.8 % of U.S. population aged 20 years and over who have Chronic Kidney Disease (2004 NHANES). Formerly a proponent of fluoridation, the National Kidney Foundation wrote on April 15, 2008, “The 1981 NKF position paper on fluoridation is outdated. The paper is withdrawn and will no longer be circulated.”

    Maureen Jones, Archivist – Citizens for Safe Drinking Water – http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org
    maureenj@pacbell.net (408) 297-8487 Fluoride Action Network – http://www.FluorideAlert.org

    2) Fluoride: Not Effective at 1 ppm!

    Fluoridation has historically been “sold” to politicians and civic leaders by using photos of rampant Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup Tooth Decay (BBTD), a highly visible decay of the upper front teeth. The cause of the decay is high levels of strep mutan bacteria. Fluoridated water at 1 ppm does not kill this bacteria that, 1) colonize on tooth surfaces, 2) thrive and multiply on sugars, and 3) pass their acidic waste onto the dental enamel causing the damage we call tooth decay.

    50 percent of U.S. Head Start children have Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup tooth decay from high levels of strep mutans bacteria. A steady source of sugar is supplied to the bacteria by sipping fluids rather than drinking fluids from a cup. The bacteria’s acidic waste first ravages the primary teeth and then continues on to decay the permanent teeth.

    In January 2000, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Senior Risk Assessment Scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis, reviewed the 1993-94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment for the City of Escondido (Keepers-of-the-Well.org, #17 Effectiveness) and stated in her critique:

    1) For preschool children, … any evaluation of the effectiveness of various measures (fluoridation) must control for the occurrence of BBTD and,

    2) Any study of the effectiveness of a particular measure (fluoridation) in preventing dental caries must control for the presence of dental sealants, or the results will be meaningless. and,

    3) In addition, if children with BBTD are thought to be more prone to developing caries in permanent teeth, then history of BBTD vs. caries incidence should be examined for both preschool and elementary children.

    The dental literature is clear that elementary school children with a history of BBTD are indeed more prone to decay in permanent teeth. Therefore, controlling or adjusting for history of BBTD in elementary school children should be the norm but is never done! By not adjusting for BBTD history and sealants, dental studies of school children can claim a (false) fluoridation benefit!
    _______________

    J H Shaw. “Causes of Dental Caries; Microbial Agents” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 317 No 16, Oct. 15, 1987.

    When rats are delivered by cesarean section and maintained under sterile conditions, they can be kept in a germ-free state for generations. Carious lesions do not develop when germ-free rats are fed a caries-producing diet.

    Bacteriocin typing of S. mutans has indicated that the mother is a major source of oral infection in her infant. …When all carious lesions in pregnant women were restored and they followed good dietary practices, their salivary S. mutans counts decreased to low levels. When these low counts were maintained during their infants’ early lives, their salivary counts of S. mutans were also low and they acquired fewer carious lesions than other children of comparable age. When children in the same study became infected with S. mutans before the age of two years, they had approximately eight times as many carious lesions as children in whom S. mutans was not detected until the age of four.

    Auge, K. Denver Post Medical Writer. Doctors donate services to restore little girl’s smile. The Denver Post, April 13, 2004. (Note: Denver, CO has been fluoridated since 1954.)
    “Sippy cups are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents’ propensity to
    let toddlers bed down with the cups, filled with juice or milk. The result is a sort of
    sleep-over party for mouth bacteria,” said pediatric dentist Dr. Barbara Hymer as she
    applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6-year-old with decayed upper teeth. Dr.
    Brad Smith, a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his practice treats up to 300 cases a
    year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries. Last year, Children’s Hospital did
    2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed from the condition, Smith said, and
    it is especially pervasive among children in poor families.

    Shiboski CH et al. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter 2003.
    Among 2,520 children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping
    milk/sweet substance was among Latinos/Hispanics (72% among Head Start and 65%
    among non-HS) and HS Asians (56%). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant decay
    rates respectively; Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not
    children lived in an area with fluoridated water.

    Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children. Public Health Reports; 107: 167-73, 1992.
    By either of the two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three of the four maxillary incisors, the rate for 5-year-olds was significantly higher than for 3-year-olds. Children attending centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the total sample or other variables.

    Kelly M et al. The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American
    Populations. J Pub Health Dent; 47:94-97, 1987.
    The prevalence of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from 17 to 85 percent with a mean of 53%. The surveyed communities had a mixture of fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking water sources. Regardless of water fluoridation, the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites surveyed.

    “Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures (grooves), mainly on the chewing surfaces of the back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay in U.S. children in 1986-87.”
    Selected Findings and Recommendations from the 1993/94 CA Oral Health Needs Assessment.

    “Because the surface-specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the remaining decay is found in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of children’s teeth; those surfaces that are not as affected by the protective benefit of fluoride.”
    Letter, August 8, 2000, from Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., CDC Atlanta GA.

    “Nearly 90 percent of cavities in school children occur in the surfaces of teeth with vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective.”
    Facts From National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall, MN, 5/92.
    _______________________
    Maureen Jones, Archivist – Citizens for Safe Drinking Water – http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org
    maureenj@pacbell.net (408) 297-8487 Fluoride Action Network – http://www.FluorideAlert.org

  9. Contrary to common assumption, U.S. EPA gave up all oversight responsibilities for direct water additives, including fluoridation chemicals, in 1988. There are now no federal safety standards for any water additive.

    Since 1994, California Civil Code requires that all water operators place only those direct water additives, including fluoridation chemicals, into our public water system that are in compliance with an industry-established standard known as ANSI/NSF Standard 60.

    To merit certification to this standard a manufacturer must first comply with NSF’s General Requirement 3.2.1, which requires that the manufacturer submit Product Review Data for its specific product. This submission is then used to determine the details of further testing and assessment requirements.

    Of special importance in this General Requirement is that a manufacturer shall submit a list of the product components and known or suspected impurities within the treatment chemical formulation, providing the maximum percent or parts by weight of each impurity, as well as a list of toxicological data, both published and unpublished if available, on the manufacturer’s product, and all of its components and contaminants.

    Access to full disclosure of product content and impurities is essential to the water operator who is committed to complying with the American Water Works Association standards for specific products. A relevant example is the AWWA standard for the most widely used fluoridation chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid: AWWA B703 Requirement Section 4.3.1 Impurities, General: “The fluorososilicic acid supplied according to this standard shall contain no minerals or organic substances in quantities capable of producing deleterious or injurious effects on the health of those consuming water that has been properly treated with fluorosilicic acid.”

    Manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and Certificates of Analysis are not a viable substitute for the manufacturer’s own declaration in the form of Product Review Data, as they do not cover the essential details.

    Water customers should insist that their water operator provide them with complete copies of Product Review documents by which the manufacturer was awarded certification, especially as the product we are to consume from a U.S manufacturer is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing; literally the scrubber-liquor from smokestack emission-capturing processes, rather than the naturally occurring compound, calcium fluoride. And since the hurricane damage to central Florida’s radioactive gypsum holding ponds for hydrofluosilicic acid, an increasing amount of fluoridation chemicals are coming from Russia, Japan and Mexico, with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reporting that 50% of one form of fluoridation chemical is sourced from China. Some suppliers now repackage the foreign products or blend them without notice to their customers.

    With U.S. rock phosphate containing up to 300 ppm uranium and uranium decay products such as radium, lead, arsenic and other heavy metals that can vary depending on the phosphate mining location, and do vary from batch to batch, specific Product Review Data is essential for accountability.

    The fact that funding grant contracts include an egregious hold harmless clause to protect everyone associated with the sale and promotion of fluoridation against claims of health effects seems to belie the grandiose statements of universal support and no possibility of harm.

  10. Contrary to common assumption, U.S. EPA gave up all oversight responsibilities for direct water additives, including fluoridation chemicals, in 1988. There are now no federal safety standards for any water additive.

    Since 1994, California Civil Code requires that all water operators place only those direct water additives, including fluoridation chemicals, into our public water system that are in compliance with an industry-established standard known as ANSI/NSF Standard 60.

    To merit certification to this standard a manufacturer must first comply with NSF’s General Requirement 3.2.1, which requires that the manufacturer submit Product Review Data for its specific product. This submission is then used to determine the details of further testing and assessment requirements.

    Of special importance in this General Requirement is that a manufacturer shall submit a list of the product components and known or suspected impurities within the treatment chemical formulation, providing the maximum percent or parts by weight of each impurity, as well as a list of toxicological data, both published and unpublished if available, on the manufacturer’s product, and all of its components and contaminants.

    Access to full disclosure of product content and impurities is essential to the water operator who is committed to complying with the American Water Works Association standards for specific products. A relevant example is the AWWA standard for the most widely used fluoridation chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid: AWWA B703 Requirement Section 4.3.1 Impurities, General: “The fluorososilicic acid supplied according to this standard shall contain no minerals or organic substances in quantities capable of producing deleterious or injurious effects on the health of those consuming water that has been properly treated with fluorosilicic acid.”

    Manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and Certificates of Analysis are not a viable substitute for the manufacturer’s own declaration in the form of Product Review Data, as they do not cover the essential details.

    Water customers should insist that their water operator provide them with complete copies of Product Review documents by which the manufacturer was awarded certification, especially as the product we are to consume from a U.S manufacturer is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing; literally the scrubber-liquor from smokestack emission-capturing processes, rather than the naturally occurring compound, calcium fluoride. And since the hurricane damage to central Florida’s radioactive gypsum holding ponds for hydrofluosilicic acid, an increasing amount of fluoridation chemicals are coming from Russia, Japan and Mexico, with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reporting that 50% of one form of fluoridation chemical is sourced from China. Some suppliers now repackage the foreign products or blend them without notice to their customers.

    With U.S. rock phosphate containing up to 300 ppm uranium and uranium decay products such as radium, lead, arsenic and other heavy metals that can vary depending on the phosphate mining location, and do vary from batch to batch, specific Product Review Data is essential for accountability.

    The fact that funding grant contracts include an egregious hold harmless clause to protect everyone associated with the sale and promotion of fluoridation against claims of health effects seems to belie the grandiose statements of universal support and no possibility of harm.

  11. As a resident of Florida let me mention some additional Phosphate/Uranium mining facts. Mosaic the largest producer of fluoridation product just closed the Ft. Meade mine which is 30% of their production. Phosphate production had dropped with the economic slowdown already. Florida is the center of US phosphate mining and at its peak had 7 uranium recovery units in operation. The last operation closed in Lake Wales 2 decades ago for cost reasons. Now all uranium is left in acid products unmentioned as a free bonus.
    About 2007 Mosaic announced a new 200 Million dollar uranium recovery unit to be built in Plant City about 25 miles from the Port of Tampa.The price of uranium and phosphate has science fallen so the project is not mentioned now.
    George Glasser has in the past forced the EPA in Florida this radiation contamination existed in the fluoridation product. The Florida Phosphate institute proudly calls uranium a co product just like the HFA smokestack scrubber waste. No recovery of uranium now happens.
    From 1957-1968 fluoride had more litigation awards then all other top 20 airborne pollutants combined. Huge settlements and lawsuit have almost always been sealed to protect industry.
    Aluminum and phosphate were the biggest polluters with the EPA ordering smokestack pollutions about 1972. This slurry of contaminates is used for 93% of fluoridation today. The FDA has yet to test any ingested fluoride product for safety or benefit. It is new unapproved after 65 years of use. No government agency will state HFA H2SiF6 smokestack product is benefit or safe for humans. They have had to admit to congress several times no emperical data exists or is planned. This is worse then a pig in a poke.
    Government let industry recover pollution recovery costs by selling the product to be drank by humans often under state mandatory fluoridation. Many states now have laws where cities are fluoridated against the vote of the people. California proves that in Watsonville and San Diego as two recent cases. Drink the toxic untested waste to help poor kids dentists refuse to treat. Even stranger is blacks are double damaged in numbers and severity by fluoridation from the first 1945 experment until today. Of course the CDC st8ill refuses to warn of this double damage even after 2007 ethics charges. Listen to the 11 EPA unions who in 2005 asked congress to halt fluoridation. Stop this foolish policy of toxic waste disposal. Dentists also increase income with the huge increase of expensive cosmetic repairs to cover the evidence of harm. The bigger issue is bones brains and kidneys damaged by cumulative fluorides over a lifetime.

  12. As a resident of Florida let me mention some additional Phosphate/Uranium mining facts. Mosaic the largest producer of fluoridation product just closed the Ft. Meade mine which is 30% of their production. Phosphate production had dropped with the economic slowdown already. Florida is the center of US phosphate mining and at its peak had 7 uranium recovery units in operation. The last operation closed in Lake Wales 2 decades ago for cost reasons. Now all uranium is left in acid products unmentioned as a free bonus.
    About 2007 Mosaic announced a new 200 Million dollar uranium recovery unit to be built in Plant City about 25 miles from the Port of Tampa.The price of uranium and phosphate has science fallen so the project is not mentioned now.
    George Glasser has in the past forced the EPA in Florida this radiation contamination existed in the fluoridation product. The Florida Phosphate institute proudly calls uranium a co product just like the HFA smokestack scrubber waste. No recovery of uranium now happens.
    From 1957-1968 fluoride had more litigation awards then all other top 20 airborne pollutants combined. Huge settlements and lawsuit have almost always been sealed to protect industry.
    Aluminum and phosphate were the biggest polluters with the EPA ordering smokestack pollutions about 1972. This slurry of contaminates is used for 93% of fluoridation today. The FDA has yet to test any ingested fluoride product for safety or benefit. It is new unapproved after 65 years of use. No government agency will state HFA H2SiF6 smokestack product is benefit or safe for humans. They have had to admit to congress several times no emperical data exists or is planned. This is worse then a pig in a poke.
    Government let industry recover pollution recovery costs by selling the product to be drank by humans often under state mandatory fluoridation. Many states now have laws where cities are fluoridated against the vote of the people. California proves that in Watsonville and San Diego as two recent cases. Drink the toxic untested waste to help poor kids dentists refuse to treat. Even stranger is blacks are double damaged in numbers and severity by fluoridation from the first 1945 experment until today. Of course the CDC st8ill refuses to warn of this double damage even after 2007 ethics charges. Listen to the 11 EPA unions who in 2005 asked congress to halt fluoridation. Stop this foolish policy of toxic waste disposal. Dentists also increase income with the huge increase of expensive cosmetic repairs to cover the evidence of harm. The bigger issue is bones brains and kidneys damaged by cumulative fluorides over a lifetime.

  13. Have you ever thought of posting more videos with your site posts to keep the visitors even more interested? I mean I just read through the whole page of yours and it had been pretty fantastic but since I am more of a visual learner, I found videos to be far more helpful. well, let me know what you think.

  14. Have you ever thought of posting more videos with your site posts to keep the visitors even more interested? I mean I just read through the whole page of yours and it had been pretty fantastic but since I am more of a visual learner, I found videos to be far more helpful. well, let me know what you think.

  15. To Donn, Mercola MD and Dr Connett have an interview that is posted both on the Mercola.com and fluorideaction.net sites. The FAN site has a half hour professional perspectives by 14 experts each with short segments. Chris Bryson wrote the Fluoride Deception and also has many videos. The book gives a wealth of once secret government data to show the links to AEC Manhatten project being protected at any cost. Stuydi9es were altered to show benefit instead of harm from fluorides. You can not even today make bomb grade uranium with out huge amounts of uranium.Fluoridation was really to protect against litigation of military contractors and the nuke projects. They knew it had no ingested benefit from the beginning. They knew it would damage teeth but promised no more then 10%. It always damaged double on blacks from the start and still does. CDC data shows this still.
    The waterloowatch site also has several videos. The general rudy one is a hoot for laughs. also the depleted uranium general rudy video.
    But FAN had many videos on home page. just click on them I like the EPA union ones also with Bill Hirzy PHD and Robert Carton PHD both toxicologists and were top President and VP at headquarters EPA in DC and got non fluoridated water for their building. The rest of the US was not so lucky.
    DC had a lead disaster Nov 1 2000 when they added choloramine which unleached lead blisters out of the pipes combined with the FSA. They hid this disaster of hundreds and thousands of times over the 15ppb lead max allowed. They did not warn the public for 3 years.Do not trust government in DC. They are liars at best. Congress has done nothing about 19 EPA unions asking to halt fluoridation.
    Maureen Jones above gets all the facts right in her lists of studies. Fluoridation promoting dentists are just foolish clowns repeating ADA talking points. Yoder K.M. on pub med 2007 Indiana, Illinois proves dentists test ignorant- very very ignorant on fluoride. I know they are not stupid because they are getting rich from fluoride damage caused cosmetic work and they refuse to treat poor kids on medicaid. Litigation will happen for the 45 tons of mercury they put in people every year. Only plutonium is more toxic to brains and kidneys then mercury. They then flush the mercury waste down the drains to pollute our sewage sludge. Which is put on farms or burned to nail us again.

  16. To Donn, Mercola MD and Dr Connett have an interview that is posted both on the Mercola.com and fluorideaction.net sites. The FAN site has a half hour professional perspectives by 14 experts each with short segments. Chris Bryson wrote the Fluoride Deception and also has many videos. The book gives a wealth of once secret government data to show the links to AEC Manhatten project being protected at any cost. Stuydi9es were altered to show benefit instead of harm from fluorides. You can not even today make bomb grade uranium with out huge amounts of uranium.Fluoridation was really to protect against litigation of military contractors and the nuke projects. They knew it had no ingested benefit from the beginning. They knew it would damage teeth but promised no more then 10%. It always damaged double on blacks from the start and still does. CDC data shows this still.
    The waterloowatch site also has several videos. The general rudy one is a hoot for laughs. also the depleted uranium general rudy video.
    But FAN had many videos on home page. just click on them I like the EPA union ones also with Bill Hirzy PHD and Robert Carton PHD both toxicologists and were top President and VP at headquarters EPA in DC and got non fluoridated water for their building. The rest of the US was not so lucky.
    DC had a lead disaster Nov 1 2000 when they added choloramine which unleached lead blisters out of the pipes combined with the FSA. They hid this disaster of hundreds and thousands of times over the 15ppb lead max allowed. They did not warn the public for 3 years.Do not trust government in DC. They are liars at best. Congress has done nothing about 19 EPA unions asking to halt fluoridation.
    Maureen Jones above gets all the facts right in her lists of studies. Fluoridation promoting dentists are just foolish clowns repeating ADA talking points. Yoder K.M. on pub med 2007 Indiana, Illinois proves dentists test ignorant- very very ignorant on fluoride. I know they are not stupid because they are getting rich from fluoride damage caused cosmetic work and they refuse to treat poor kids on medicaid. Litigation will happen for the 45 tons of mercury they put in people every year. Only plutonium is more toxic to brains and kidneys then mercury. They then flush the mercury waste down the drains to pollute our sewage sludge. Which is put on farms or burned to nail us again.

Comments are closed.