by Theodora Kerry
March 2001

Now that California has mandated fluoridation for all water districts with over 10,000 customers, it's even more imperative that we, the water consumers, ask questions and demand answers about this practice and its effects on all parts of our bodies, not just our teeth. For-tunately, in the 50 years since fluoridation be-gan in America, much has been learned about how ingested fluoride impacts our health. Con-trary to-the assurances of those who would lit-erally force fluoride down our throats, none of these impacts are beneficial. Read on to learn the fluoride facts that your friendly fluoridationist would rather not tell you, and remember, only by educating ourselves about this crucial issue will we be able to prevent truth decay in future generations!

What is Fluoride

Fluoride is an element equal in toxicity to lead and arsenic, which are allowed in our water only at levels of 15 and 50 parts per billion (ppb) respectively, while fluoride levels, under fluoridation, are allowed to be as high as 4000 ppb.

Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency.

Fluoride is a cumulative poison. Only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys, while the remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues.

Fluoride is so toxic that the FDA now requires poison notices on all fluoridated toothpastes warning parents to put no more than a pea-sized amount on their children's toothbrushes.

Fluoridation Agents

Hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium fluoride, the chemicals used in 90% of U.S. water fluoridation programs, are the hazardous wastes of the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries. (Fluorine Recovery in the Fertilizer Industry - a Review, Phosphorus & Potassium No. 103, Sept/Oct `79)

There are no government standards nor regulatory oversight for these products which means they are commonly contaminated with radionuclides, lead, arsenic, uranium, and mercury.

There have been no clinically controlled long-term studies of the actual chemicals used in fluoridation.

Fluoride is one of the most interactive elements which means it easily combines with other elements along its path thus making new chemical concoctions with the other water additives, and leaching lead and copper from our pipes and aluminum from our pans.

In a survey of over 280,000 children, Dartmouth researchers found that where silicfluorides were used to fluoridate water, children were over twice as likely to have blood lead levels above the danger level of 10 mg/dL. (Dartmouth News, Aug. 31, 1999)

Fluoridation is Harmful to Your Health
The national Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050, representing the 1200 chemists, toxicologists and science professionals at the EPA stated in 1997 that they oppose fluoridation because their "members' review of the body of evidence over the past 11 years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, bone pathology, and lower IQ's in children", and that "contrary to public perception, there is virtually no evidence of significant benefits."

According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (Toxicological Profile TP91/17-1993) those people particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects include postmenopausal women, elderly men, diabetics, people with poor kidney function or cardiovascular problems, and people who suffer from malnutrition (e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies and protein-poor diets). Ironically, those most likely to suffer from malnutrition are the poor, who are precisely the ones being targeted by new fluoridation proposals.

Fluoride is very biologically active even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding which is central to the structure and function of proteins and nucleic acids. Thus, fluoride has the potential to disrupt events at the very heart of living things (Emsley, 1981).

Fluoride has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in a variety of insect, tissue culture and animal studies (DHSS, 1991, Mihashi and Tsutsui, 1996).

Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the reproductive system - it renders sperm non-functional and increases the rate of infertility (Chinoy et al, 1995; Kumar & Susheela, 1994; Chinoy & Narayana, 1994; Chinoy & Sequeira, 1989).

Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains and had an increased level of aluminum present in their brain (Varner et al, 1998). Aluminum in the brain is associated with Alzheimers disease.

Animal experiments show that fluoride exposure alters mental behavior (Mullenix et al, 1995). Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or "couch potato" syndrome).

Three studies from China show a lowering of IQ in children associated with fluoride exposure (Li et al, 1995; Zhao et al, 1996 and Lu et al, 2000). Another study (Lin et al, 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g. 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency, which include decreased IQ and retardation. (According to the CDC, iodine deficiency has nearly quadrupled in the U.S. since the 1970's, with nearly 12% of the population now iodine deficient.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services (1991) fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated to range from 1.58 to 6.6 mg/day, which overlaps the dose (2.4 - 4.7 mg/day) shown to decrease the functioning of the human thyroid. (Golletti & Joyet, 1958). Hypothyroidism, whose symptoms include depression fatique, weight gain, muscle and joint pain and risk of heart disease, is rampant in the U.S..

In some studies, when high doses of fluoride were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a HIGHER number of hip fractures (Hediund arid Gallagher 1989; Riggs et al, 1990).

Eighteen studies since 1990 have examined the possible relationship of fluoridation and an increase in hip fracture among the elderly. Ten of these studies found an association, eight did not. Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, as a quarter of those who have a hip fracture die within a year of the operation, while 50 percent never regain an independent existence.

One animal study (National Toxicology Program, 1990) shows a dose-related increase in osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in male rats.

Two epidemiological studies show a possible association between osteosarcoma in young men and living in fluoridated areas (National Cancer Institute, 1989 and Cohn, 1992).

Fluoridation Does Not Prevent Tooth Decay

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never studied nor approved the therapeutic use of fluoride. (Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology; 19: 88-92, 1991)

The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano, 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996).

Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun, 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized.

The largest survey ever conducted in the U.S. (over 39,000 children from 84 communities in 1987) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed no statistical difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman, 1989 and Yzamouyiannis, 1990).

Leading dental researchers (Levine, 1976; Fejerskov, Thylstrup and Larsen, 1981; Carlos, 1983; Featherstone, 1987, 1999, 2000; Margolis and Moreno, 1990; Clark, 1993; Burt, 1994; Shellis and Duckworth, 1994 and Limeback, 1999, 2000), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999) are now acknowledging that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC.

98% of Europe is unfluoridated (by choice) and its citizens have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the U.S., which is 60% fluoridated.

Although all Native American reservations are fluoridated, children living there have a much higher incidence of dental decay than children in other U.S. communities. (ADA News 10/17/94 )

When fluoridation has been discontinued in communities in Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer 1997,2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

While topical fluoride treatments can help make teeth harder, they also make them more brittle arid-thus, easier-to break. This is the same reason the incidence of hip fractures among the elderly is higher in fluoridated communities.

Fluoridation Causes Dental and Skeletal Fluorosis

Dental fluorosis means that a child has been poisoned by fluoride. It appears, in milder cases, as white spots, and in moderate to severe cases, as brown stains on the tooth surface. Although dentists consider this to only be a cosmetic problem, it is indicative of fluoride poisoning throughout the whole body.

66.4% of U.S. schoolchildren in "optimally" fluoridated communities have at least one tooth that displays the permanent signs of dental fluorosis. (Journal of Public Health Dentistry Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997)

African-American children experience twice the prevalence of dental fluorosis as white children, and it tends to be more severe. (National Research Council, Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, 1993, pg. 44)

Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, which impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa, mimic the symptoms of arthritis, and are often misdiagnosed. Few if any studies have been done to determine whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America is related to our growing fluoride exposure. Fluoridation Means Overdosing Ourselves on Fluoride

Fluoridation allows water consumers to be medicated at doses higher than a physician can legally prescribe. Both the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics' fluoride dosage schedules recommend that infants in unfluoridated areas receive no additional fluoride, while children under 3 receive the amount in 1 cup/day of fluoridated water, and children under 6 receive the amount in 2 cups/day. (Journal of the ADA (JADA), Vol. 126, June 1995, 19-S ) Any consumption of fluoridated water beyond these amounts would constitute an overdose!

The level of fluoride commonly put into water (1 ppm) is 100 times higher than normally found- in mothers' milk (0.01 ppm) (Institute of Medicine, 1997 ).

Once fluoride is put in the water, it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives. Some people drink more water than others, plus we receive fluoride from sources other than the water supply.

A 1997 study of fluoride concentrations in 238 commercial baby foods fogy-levelsranging from 0.01 to 8.38 parts per million with the highest levels found in those products containing chicken. (Heilman, et al., JADA; 128: 857-63, 1997 )

A 1991 study of 43 commercial fruit juices found that 42% of the samples had more than 1 ppm of fluoride. (Stannard, et al., Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry; 16.. 38-40, 1991)

A 1999 study of 332 carbonated soft drinks found fluoride levels ranging from 0.02 to 1.28 ppm, with 71 % exceeding 0.60 ppm. (Heilman, et al., JADA; 130: 1593-99,1999)

A 1997 study found that the water-extractable fluoride content of 5 brands of California raisins varied from 0.83 to 5.20 ppm (Burgstahler et al., Fluoride; 30: 142-146, 1997). The elevated fluoride levels in these wines and raisins result from the use of cryolite, a fluoride-containing pesticide which is also used on many other crops including potatoes, cabbage, lettuce, and tomatoes. These crops are allowed to contain fluoride residues at levels well over 50 ppm.

Although we are exposed to far more fluoride in 2000 than we were in 1945 when fluoridation began, the "optimal" fluoridation level is still 1 ppm (1000 ppb), the same level deemed optimal in 1945!

The fluoridation program has been very poorly monitored, and U.S. health officials have never done a comprehensive analysis . of the fluoride levels in the lies of the American people.

While promoters of fluoridation continue to deny that there is any scientific debate on this issue, and while many professionals in the scientific and medical communities have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991) when they've spoken out against the practice, the truth is that the list of opponents to fluoridation has; from the beginning, included thousands of scientists, bio-chemists, toxicologists, physicians, dentists and concerned citizens like yourselves.

One of the most outspoken is Paul Connett, Ph.D., a Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York, who's "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation" ( formed the basis of this article. He has proved to be a trusted Keeper of the Well. Now that you know the truth about fluoridation, will you become one too?

[PART 1 of the article - History of Fluoridation]