This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Issues with present reports and facts that should be disclosed to consumers of fluoridated water
July 15, 2015
1. For over 10 years the ADA and CDC have acknowledged that fluoride works topically. Water quality reports stating
“Fluoride is a water additive which promotes strong teeth.” Are misleading and should read “Ingesting fluoride while
teeth are developing can cause enamel defects called dental fluorosis, certain extremes of which are cosmetically
objectionable.” CDC, p6. The ADA acknowledges that dental fluorosis is caused by a disruption in enamel formation
when fluoride is ingested during tooth development. In Fluoridation Facts the ADA ignores their own July 2000 JADA
cover story describing fluoride’s action as topical and instead, uses a 1986 reference to perpetuate the notion that
ingested or systemic fluoride protects against tooth decay.
2. While promoters of fluoridation say that dental fluorosis is only a cosmetic effect and not a health concern, the
medical definition of fluorosis is that it is a sign of fluoride toxicity or fluoride poisoning, effecting tooth enamel in
children and bones & joints in adults. Since infants can be among those most at risk of harm from fluoride toxicity, the
statement “Fluoridated water should not be used to reconstitute powdered infant formula.” Should be publicized.
3. The CDC reports that in the last survey of US children aged 12-15, 40.7% had dental fluorosis and 3.6% had moderate
and severe dental fluorosis, up from 22.6% and 1.3% in the previous survey. In “optimally” fluoridated Augusta, GA,
80.9% of the children 12-14 years old had fluorosis. Moderate-to-severe fluorosis was found in 14% of the children.
Blacks are disproportionately affected. Studies show black children have twice the fluorosis rates as whites and the
fluorosis in blacks tends to be more severe. Black pastors have spoken out about the issue. A CDC study reveals that
approximately 2% of US school children may experience esthetically objectionable fluorosis that is attributable to water
fluoridation. Since the treatment for fluorosis is removal from further exposure, one must question water fluoridation.
4. The US Public Health Service and others state that rising fluorosis rates are a sign that total fluoride exposure needs
to be reduced. In 1942, a time when there were no other important sources of fluoride, Dean recorded fluorosis when
drinking water contained only 0.4 mg/L fluoride, about half the present “optimal” concentration. Today, some teas
contain up to 33.3 mg/L fluoride! It is very important not to confuse fluoride concentration in water with one’s total
daily dose of fluoride exposure. These are facts that must be considered when truly evaluating fluoridation.
5. Approximately 99% of the body burden of fluoride is associated with calcified tissues. Of the fluoride absorbed by
the young or middle-aged adult each day, approximately 50% will be associated with calcified tissues (bone and
ligaments) within 24 hours and the remainder will be excreted in urine—if one’s kidneys are functioning normally.
The Material Safety Data Sheet for a delivery of fluosilicic acid to the City of Fort Myers, FL states: “Intake of 6 mg or
more/day may result in brittleness of bones, anemia, weakness, stiffness of joints and progressive changes in teeth and
skeleton.” Early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis include stiffness or pain in joints, osteosclerosis of the pelvis and
vertebral column and calcification of ligaments. An important side-bar to this information is the fact that the World
Health Organization has said that skeletal fluorosis may be misdiagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis.
6. The US Public Health Service has said consumers of abnormally large quantities of water should drink bottled water.
People with kidney problems, diabetics, athletes, outdoor workers and military personnel have been identified by the
National Research Council as individuals with higher than normal exposure to the toxic effects of fluoridated water.
7. A 14 year investigation into the effects of fluoride ingestion on children and adults determined that 1% reacted
adversely to fluoride. A 1956 progress report published in Dental Digest gives several case histories and mentions the
complication presented when the fluoride is in the public water supply. The final report, published in 1961 in the
Journal of Dental Medicine, described reactions affecting the dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological systems.
Eczema, atopic dermatitis, urticaria, epigastric distress, emesis and headache occurred with the ingestion of fluoride.
George Waldbott, MD became aware of adverse effects of fluoridated water in 1954. By the time his 1980 Southern
Medical Journal article was published, he had encountered several hundred cases of fluoride toxicity. Chemist Deloss
Winkler eloquently described his experience with fluoride sensitivity in an affidavit. Aliss Terpstra’s revealing story of
hypersensitivity to fluoride since birth in Grand Rapids, Michigan is described here. Sensitivity references are included.
8. Letters from neurotoxicologist Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., and risk assessment specialist Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D., are of
interest in that Dr. Mullenix explains where and how her studies led her to find that brain function was impacted by
fluoride. Dr. Thiessen’s involvement and interest in the fluoridation issue led her to being a panel member of the 2006
National Research Council cited above. An essential read is her paper “Comments on Fluoridation of Drinking Water.”
9. Higher blood lead levels have been reported in children living in communities that receive fluoride-treated water.
Cities have reported reduced lead levels in water when fluoridation stopped. “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead,
mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” excerpt from “Impact of Fluoride on Neurological
Development in Children,” Harvard School of Public Health. The EPA lists fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant.
10. In 1980 the Virginia Department of Health asked toxicologist Brian Dementi to review the available literature
relating to the health effects of fluoride. His 46 page report titled “Fluoride in Drinking Water” concluded: “With
regard to fluoridation, this writer is of the opinion that the evidence of adverse health effects is of such magnitude and
human beings so varied in their individual constitution, state of health at any moment, eating and drinking habits, etc.,
that it is inappropriate to say that fluoridation is a totally healthful and safe practice for all. Widespread exposure to
fluoride coupled with an inadequate data base substantiating it to be safe is a cause of great concern.”
11. On fluoridation and cancer, Elise Bassin’s May 2006 article in Cancer Causes Control titled “Age-specific fluoride
exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States)” has, to date, not been refuted. Dr. Dementi (above)
outlined his concerns as does the EPA’s Dr. Hirzy. John Lee, MD, described fluoride as an “enabler” in the cancer
process in his paper “Fluoridation and Cancer.” Wm. Marcus, Ph.D., resisted EPA efforts to censor his toxicity findings.
12. Owners of horses should be informed that studies have shown that horses drinking fluoridated water for long
periods of time developed signs of fluoride intoxication, e.g. dental fluorosis, crooked legs, hoof deformities, allergic
reactions etc. In addition to horses, a variety of other animals have shown signs of fluoride toxicity. (References)
13. Lawyers have stated in claims that “Defendants know or should have known that their products, when taken as
intended, cause and contribute to an increased risk of persistent and/or permanent serious and dangerous side effects
including, without limitation, cognitive impairment and dental fluorosis.” They solicit fluoride injury claims.
14. The statement “Fluoride, added at the water treatment plant, benefits industry.” Is a true statement that should be
included in Water Quality Reports. The journey of fluosilicic acid from the fertilizer industry to our drinking water is
documented in this paper trail. Note that the EPA says the use of fluosilicic acid is an ideal solution to a long-standing
problem and the AMA says it is not prepared to state that “No harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation.”
15. Claims by the ADA and others that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20-40% are challenged by the fact
that major fluoridated U.S. cities are experiencing escalating dental crises. In Fluoridation Facts the ADA claimed the
Newburgh-Kingston study showed 70% less decay in fluoridated Newburgh. Analysis of the data does not support that
claim as pointed out by Richard Foulkes, MD. Note, tooth decay decreased when fluoridation ended in La Salud, Cuba.
Infant Fluoride Intake
Infant fluoride intake when powdered formula is reconstituted with fluoridated water can equal up to 1.57 mg/day in
a 3 month old (Levy). The Tolerable Upper Intake of fluoride equals 0.7 mg/day, meaning getting a dose of more than
double the recognized limit (CDC). As stated earlier, 3.6% of surveyed US children aged 12-15 exhibited moderate and
severe dental fluorosis (CDC). There can be no doubt that much of this fluorosis occurred when developing teeth were
exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride as described here. Repair is difficult and costly (JCDA; Bill Osmundson, DDS).
Plus, the relatively acid environment of the stomach ensures that more than 90% of ingested fluoride will be in the form of
hydrogen fluoride (HF) (Ekstrand). Hydrogen fluoride inhibits essential enzyme activity, damages cells and causes them to
not work properly (JADA, CDC). Hydrogen fluoride has been listed as a special health hazard by the State of New Jersey
(Univar MSDS). Fluoride is listed as a chemical with Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity (EPA).* Hydrogen
fluoride is so corrosive to tissues that the Handbook of Poisoning: Prevention, Diagnosis & Treatment says that if HF has
penetrated under the fingernails, consider removing the nails using local anesthesia. Image of fluoride damaged stomach.
Allowing a 3 month old infant to ingest 1.57mg of a topically reactive fluoride dental agent is neither safe nor effective.
* ”Presently there are over 100 animal studies and now 44 studies associating modest levels of fluoride exposure with
lowered IQ in children. The last children in the US that need their IQ lowered are children from low income families–the
key target for fluoridation programs! Where is the evidence that could justify dismissing all these studies?” (Paul Connett)
The information in this “Request” was compiled by Kenneth Case. Upon seeing the apparent lack of integrity and abuse of
basic scientific principles that many promoters of fluoridation exhibit, he put his efforts into trying to make a difference.
Some of the things he has put together are: “A Case Against Fluoride” consisting of some 255 pages of letters, documents,
journal articles and related information collected over the years. “34 Fluoride References” – a collection of information
that gives a quick overview of the fluoridation issue. And, “Fluoride Science 101” which give a little insight into why and
how it is that state departments of health can be so out of touch with reality regarding fluoridation.
Water fluoridation was halted in Pagosa Springs, Colorado when Cathy Justus’s horses showed signs of fluoride toxicity.
In the light of the information presented above, one wonders why it is that the American Dental Association continues to
endorse water fluoridation.
Endorsements are not science. It is time for public officials to look at the evidence that is now only a key stroke or two
A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride, Second Look
Fluoride Health Effects Database, Fluoride Action Network, FAN
“Fluoride Fatigue-Fluoride Poisoning: Is fluoride in your drinking water…making you sick?” Bruce Spittle
Fluoride Quarterly, Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research Inc.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90830396 R. Foulkes, MD. Why he changed mind. Evaluates Newburgh/Kingston. Proceedings 1951.
http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation. Wm. Hirzy, Ph.D.
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/ Fluoride News Tracker Blog covers escalating dental woes in fluoridated communities.
http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.html Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation. (See revealing graph at end)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90638965/Kennedy David Kennedy, DDS, explains to California officials why fluoridation is harmful.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/new-visitors/10-facts/ Chemist Paul Connett, PhD, discusses water fluoridation, provides references.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111706174/Hensley-Letter State Rep. Hensley, MD, recommends Tennessee stop fluoridating.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90207300/Wm-Marcus-PhD EPA Toxicologist told to quit submitting fluoride toxicity information.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89602513/G-Heard-DDS-1954 Texas dentist identified fluoridation problems at the very beginning.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93812938/Fluoridation-Failures Fluoride promoters’ promises unmet, dental crises in major US cities.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88687940/Osmunson-BMJ-Letter Bill Osmunson, DDS, explains lifetime costs of repairing fluorosis.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17172739/Dr-Hardy-Limeback-Statement Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, (NRC 2006) outlines his findings.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113885883/General-Fluoridation-Statement Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, (NRC 2006) risk analysis expert
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16887647/Fluoridation-and-Cancer-John-Lee-MD Fluoride an “enabler” in the cancer process.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89603161/Informed-Side-Wins-Fluoride-Debate-at-U-of-Pittsburgh Informed dental students win.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46980434/Fluoridation-A-Clinician-s-Experience-Waldbott-SMJ-1980 Case studies of fluoride toxicity.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?