The Facts About Fluoride & Human Intelligence

In the initial version of this article, we estimated that “over 200,000″ Americans drink water with 1.8 to 2.0 ppm. Based on data from the National Research Council, however, it appears that a more accurate estimate is “about 600,000.” We have changed our estimate accordingly.

In July, a team of Harvard and Chinese scientists published a study that warned of fluoride’s potential to reduce human intelligence.  The researchers issued their warning after reviewing dozens of studies from the past two decades that have linked elevated fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children. Although the National Research Council issued a similar warning in 2006, advocates of fluoridation continue to push ahead with plans to fluoridate yet more water supplies in what is already the most fluoridated nation on Earth: the United States.Fluoridation advocates — including both scientists and city officials — are seriously misrepresenting, and in some cases making outright false statements, about the Harvard team’s study. To help remedy this situation, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is releasing the results of its six-month investigation into fluoride’s effects on the brain, and thyroid gland. In the course of this investigation, FAN has located, obtained, and — in many cases — translated dozens of studies on all facets of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, including studies detailing fluoride’s effects on the thyroid gland. In total, FAN has identified 34 studies which detected an association between fluoride and reduced IQ in human populations. FAN has also identified dozens of other studies which correlate fluoride exposure with impaired learning and memory, altered neurobehavioral function, fetal brain damage, and altered thyroid hormone levels.

Legislators who continue to mandate the addition of fluoride to public water without fully apprising themselves of this research are doing a profound disservice to the health and welfare of their constituents.

The Harvard Study

A research team led by scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) sparked national headlines in July when they reported that the vast majority of research that has been conducted on fluoride and human intelligence has found significant reductions in childhood IQ. Twenty-six of the twenty-seven studies that fit the Harvard team’s criteria found a relationship between fluoride and reduced IQ, with 20 of the studies finding a statistically significant effect.

Although some of the IQ studies have used simple designs, the Harvard team concluded that study deficiencies were unlikely to explain why 26 of the 27 studies found associations between fluoride and reduced IQ. The Harvard team thus concluded that fluoride’s effect on children’s developing brain should be a “high research priority” in countries like the U.S. where, despite mass fluoridation programs, no studies have yet been conducted to investigate the issue.

Protecting Public Policy Instead of Public Health

Despite the Harvard team’s findings, U.S. fluoridation proponents have continued their “full speed ahead” approach of forcing every individual, including toddlers and children, to ingest fluoride through public tap water and all of the processed foods and beverages made with it. Rather than pausing to consider that current fluoride exposures (from all sources, including fluoridated water, fluoridated dental products, pesticides, tea, and processed beverages) might be permanently damaging the brain of some children in the United States, particularly those children with nutrient deficiencies (e.g., iodine) and the 3.6% of children who now have moderate/severe fluorosis, proponents have concluded (based on assumptions, not data) that fluoride cannot be causing reduced IQ in the United States.

False & Misleading Claims

The quick dismissal by fluoride advocates of the Harvard team’s findings is rooted, in part, on demonstrably false and misleading claims. Two of the most common claims are that (1) the size of the IQ reduction from fluoride is “meaningless,” and  (2) the fluoride levels were too high to be relevant to U.S. populations. Both of these claims will now be addressed:

The Size of the IQ Reduction

Dr. Myron Allukian, a longtime fluoridation proponent, has stated that the Harvard team found only “a half point difference in IQ” between the children from high-fluoride and low-fluoride areas. According to Allukian, “a half point difference in IQ is meaningless. That’s like saying, we measured all the people in New York and Chicago and in New York they were a half millimeter taller.” Several other fluoridation “experts” made similar statements at a September 6th hearing before the city council of Portland, Oregon.

The problem with Allukian’s claim is that it is completely false — a fact that can be readily verified by actually reading the Harvard study. The Harvard team found that high-fluoride exposure was associated with a 0.45 reduction in the “standardized mean difference” (SMD) in intelligence. Dr. Allukian and other fluoridation proponents have mistakenly interpreted this to mean that a half-point reduction in SMD equates to a half-point reduction in IQ. This, however, is NOT the case. As the Harvard team has recently confirmed, a reduction of 0.45 SMD is “approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores.”

If Allukian and other fluoridation “experts” had read the Harvard study and understood the SMD concept, they would have known this. Instead, it appears they relied on second-hand accounts of the Harvard study, including an HSPH press release. After FAN Researcher Chris Neurath brought the error to HSPH’s attention, a correction was made. The “experts” however continue to repeat the error as if it were true. It goes without saying that experts and policy officials should not be basing public statements about the Harvard team’s findings without having read the study themselves. The lack of diligence by these “experts” and public officials on an issue involving permanent potential damage to some children’s brains is as breathtaking as it is appalling.

The Relevance of the IQ Studies to Fluoridated Populations

Another misleading claim made by fluoridation proponents is that the fluoride levels in the IQ studies were far higher than the fluoride levels to which children are exposed in the United States. Fluoridation proponents have reached this conclusion by (a) focusing on the highest water fluoride level (11.5 mg/L) studied in 1 of the 27 studies, and then (b) insinuating that this high level is representative of all of the studies. The Pew Children’s Dental Campaign (which now promotes fluoridation schemes across the U.S.) initiated this line of reasoning within days of the Harvard study’s release. According to the Pew campaign:

“In many cases, the high-fluoride areas were significantly higher than the levels used to fluoridate public water systems in the U.S.  In fact, the high-fluoride areas in these foreign countries reached levels as high as 11.5 mg/L, which is more than 10 times higher than the optimal level used in the U.S.”

Other fluoridation proponents, including Sam Adams, the Mayor of Portland, Oregon, have since repeated Pew’s claim. What these proponents have failed to acknowledge is that only ONE of the studies that the Harvard team reviewed had fluoride levels as high as 11.5 mg/l.  By contrast, the majority of the studies that the Harvard team reviewed investigated fluoride levels that are still considered “safe” in the United States.  Of the twenty studies that investigated the effect of fluoride intake from water, twelve examined communities with a fluoride content less than 4 mg/l. This is a level that is still considered “safe” by the U.S. EPA. Every one of these twelve studies found reduced IQ in the “high-fluoride” community when compared to a low-fluoride community. Of these twelve studies:

• Seven studies found reduced IQs among children drinking water with fluoride levels between 2.1 mg/l and 4 mg/l — levels that 1.4 million Americans drink everyday.(Poureslami 2011; Seraj 2006; Hong 2001; Wang 2001; Lu 2000; Yang 1994; An 1992)
• Four studies found effects at levels between 1.8 mg/l and 2.0 mg/l — levels thatabout 600,000 Americans drink everyday. (Xiang 2004; Yao 1997; Yao 1996; Xu 1994)
• One study (sponsored by UNICEF) found reduced IQ at just 0.88 mg/l – a level within the “optimal” range of fluoride that is added to the drinking water of over 200 million Americans. (Lin 1991)

Far from being irrelevant to U.S. exposures, these fluoride levels are actually being consumed on a regular basis by  millions of Americans. Further, the fluoride levels that have been detected in the children’s urine in five of these studies (1.5 to 3 mg/l) were found to be exceeded by many adults living in fluoridated populations in England. (Mansfield 1999) While there is a striking absence of urinary fluoride data among both children and adults in the United States, the high exposure to fluoride toothpasteamong young children is almost certain to produce urine fluoride levels that match the levels documented in the Chinese children.

Another population at clear risk from fluoride are children born to women who drink large amounts of low-quality teas. Research from China has repeatedly found that high fluoride exposure during pregnancy can damage the brain of the fetus in ways that can permanently reduce the intelligence of the child. (Yu 1996; Dong 1993; Du 1992; Han 1989) Damage to fetal brain has been found in women with urinary fluoride levels of just 4.3 ppm. (Yu 1996). Notably, this is a level of fluoride that heavy tea drinkers in the U.S. and England are known to exceed. (Izuora 2011; Whyte 2005; Mansfield 1999). The neurological impact of heavy-tea consumption during pregnancy has never been studied.

The “Margin of Safety” Problem

Fluoridation proponents’ dismissal of the IQ studies has also been based on a failure to address the “margin of safety” problem. The concept of a margin of safety is a deeply rooted cornerstone in all modern risk assessments; yet fluoridation proponents act as if they don’t even know the concept exists. As demonstrated here, this failure to address the margin of safety issue is a critically important omission.

In conventional risk assessment, the U.S. EPA uses a default margin of safety often. Translated, this means EPA seeks to limit exposure to chemicals to levels that are ten times less than the levels that cause adverse effects. With fluoride and IQ, however, the levels of fluoride (in water and urine) that have repeatedly been linked to IQ reductions are — at most — just two or three times more than tens of millions of American children now receive on a daily basis. From a risk assessment perspective, this is an extremely unnerving situation, one almost certain to cause neurological harm in an untold number of children. The situation is particularly unnerving, and particularly serious, for those children who have a heightened vulnerability to fluoride’s neurological toxicity.

While there are occasions where the EPA will accept a margin of safety lower than ten, it only does so when there is clear data demonstrating that the default margin of safety is unnecessary. This exception does not apply to fluoride and IQ because a safe level of fluoride exposure for the neurological health of all children has not yet been demonstrated.

Vulnerable Children Are Being Disregarded and Ignored

Human studies have repeatedly found that some children are at a much greater risk of suffering neurological damage from fluoride than others. A UNICEF-funded study, for example, found that children with iodine deficiencies suffered reductions in IQ at fluoride levels of just 0.88 mg/L. (Lin 1991) Other research — both animal and human — has repeatedly confirmed that children with iodine deficiency suffer greater neurological disorders when exposed to elevated fluoride than they do from the iodine deficiency itself. This is a striking fact when considering that, according to the CDC, the rate of iodine deficiency in the U.S. has increased significantly in the past three decades, and now affects up to 12% of the population.

Since U.S. Health Authorities Aren’t Doing Their Job, FAN Will Do It for Them

It has become obvious in recent weeks that U.S. health authorities are more interested in convincing communities to fluoridate their water than honestly communicating the facts about fluoride and intelligence. Because of their systemic, ongoing failure to honestly address this serious public health issue, FAN has expended a significant amount of time and money searching for, accessing, and translating all studies on fluoride and intelligence, whether they be in English, Chinese, or other languages.

In total, FAN has identified 40 studies that have investigated fluoride’s impact on human intelligence, as well as 16 studies that — in carefully controlled laboratory conditions — have examined fluoride’s impact on the learning and memory capacity of animals. As we document here, 34 of the 40 human studies have detected reductions in IQ from fluoride exposure, while 15 of the 16 animal studies have found fluoride exposure impairs the ability to learn and remember.

To facilitate public understanding of this research, FAN is making all of its translations publicly available, including the studies that did not find a relationship between fluoride and reduced IQ. FAN’s summary of this research, as well as links to full-text copies of the studies, can be accessed at the following links

Conclusion

At FAN, we believe that better information produces better results. For decades, proponents of water fluoridation have decided that it is better to convince communities to fluoridate water than inform the public about the true state of knowledge about fluoride’s toxicity, including the breathtaking uncertainties and reasonably looming hazards. As the public learns the deeply disturbing details that have been systematically omitted by fluoridation proponents we have no doubt that fluoridation of water will end. The fate of those who helped perpetuate this ill-conceived program is less clear.

REFERENCES:

• An J, et al. (1992). The effects of high fluoride on the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 7(2):93-94. [See study]
• Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 2012 Jul 20. [Epub ahead of print] [See study]
• Dong Z, et al. (1993). Determination of the contents of amino-acid and monoamine neurotransmitters in fetal brains from a fluorosis-endemic area.Journal of Guiyang Medical College 18(4):241-45. [See study]
• Du L. (1992). The effect of fluorine on the developing human brain. Chinese Journal of Pathology 21(4):218-20. [See study]
• Han H, et al. (1989). Effects of fluorine on the human fetus. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:136-138. [See study]
• Hong F, et al. (2001). Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments. Chinese Primary Health Care 15(3):56-57 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41(2):156–60). [See study]
• Izuora K, et al. (2011). Skeletal fluorosis from brewed tea. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 96(8):2318-24.
• Lin F, et al (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin 6(2):62-67 (republished inIodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7(3):24-25).  [See study]
• Lu Y, et al (2000). Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence of children. Fluoride 33:74-78. [See study]
• Mansfield P. (1999). The distribution of urinary fluoride concentration in the U.K.Fluoride 32(1):27-32. [See study]
• Poureslami HR, et al. (2011). Intelligence quotient of 7 to 9 year-old children from an area with high fluoride in drinking water. Journal of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene 3(4):61-64.
• Seraj B, et al. (2006). [Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children’s intelligence]. [Study in Persian] Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86. [See abstract]
• Wang X, et al. (2001). Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children’s intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 20(4):288-90. [See study]
• Whyte MP, et al. (2005). Skeletal fluorosis and instant tea. American Journal of Medicine 118:78-82.
• Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94. [See study]
• Xiang Q, et al. (2003b). Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride 36: 198-199. [See study]
• Xu Y, et al. (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84. [See study]
• Yang Y, et al. (1994). The effects of high levels of fluoride and iodine on intellectual ability and the metabolism of fluoride and iodine. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 15(4):296-98 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:336-339). [See study]
• Yao Y, et al. (1997). Comparative assessment of the physical and mental development of children in endemic fluorosis area with water improvement and without water improvement. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 3(1):42-43. [See study]
• Yao Y, et al. (1996). Analysis on TSH and intelligence level of children with dental Fluorosis in a high fluoride area. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 2(1):26-27. [See study]
• Yu Y, et al. (1996). Neurotransmitter and receptor changes in the brains of fetuses from areas of endemic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 15:257-259. [See study]

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/11/03/the-facts-about-fluoride-human-intelligence/

Ethan A. Huff - How to fight water fluoridation in your city

Water fluoridation has become quite the hot-button political issue in America today, especially as the pro-fluoride establishment is increasingly being forced to address the myriad of emerging scientific evidence highlighting the dangers of fluoride. But many city officials and legislators continue to remain largely unaware of, and in some cases willfully defiant against, the truth about fluoride.

Still entrenched in the political framework of public health today is the idea that artificially fluoridating public water supplies prevents tooth decay and lessens the overall costs associated with dental treatments. This flawed ideology dates back to about the 1930s when the aluminum mining and smelting industries concocted a way to dispose of their unwanted fluoride chemical byproducts by pushing them on the unsuspecting masses as a remedy for tooth decay.

Though science has never backed up this and many other claims made by the pro-fluoride lobby, fluoridation remains a blindly-accepted public health measure throughout America today. And yet at the same time, things are also starting to change as citizens, health officials, and former fluoride advocates learn the facts about fluoride and begin spreading the truth (http://www.esterrepublic.com/Archives/dyates2.html).

Hundreds of North American communities have axed fluoride from their water supplies in recent decades (http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.aspx), and many more are in a position to follow suit if science can ultimately break the political stronghold that is holding on for dear life to the fluoride myth.

Read More:

http://www.naturalnews.com/036084_water_fluoridation_protests_activism.html

Andrew W. Saul - Dispensing with Fluoride

Evidence-based medicine requires evidence before medicating. Fluoridation of water is not evidence-based. It has not been tested in well-controlled studies. Fluoridation of public water is a default medication, since you have to deliberately avoid it if you do not want to take it." ~ Andrew W. Saul

As a child, there was nothing I liked about going to the dental dispensary, with the possible exception of the large tropical fish aquarium in the waiting room. This was a distraction to what was coming: three hours in a vast hall containing a double line of black dental chairs and a matching double line of white-clad dental students. And that, as a six-year-old, is where I first met fluoride on a regular basis. After a free cleaning and checkup (the reason my cost-conscious parents had me go there, and the reason it literally took three hours to complete), fluoride was applied to my teeth with a swab.

I remember both the smell (acrid) and the taste (astringent). I actually looked forward to the fluoride treatment, simply because it was the last thing they did to me before I was allowed to leave. Did it work? Probably not. In addition to my regular topical fluoride treatments, I lived in a city with fluoridated water and was raised on fluoridated toothpaste. And I had a mouthful of amalgam by high-school graduation.

Read More:

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v08n16.shtml

NYC’s First-Ever “Stop Fluoridation Rally” and Press Conference

New York City Council Member Peter F. Vallone,Jr. will hold NYC’s first-ever Stop Fluoridation Rally and Press Conference on May 15th at 11 am on City Hall steps.

Last year, Councilman Vallone drafted legislation (Introduction Number 463) to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals into New York City’s public water supplies. Since then special-interest groups have mounted a major push-back. He needs our support to get this critical legislation passed. 

Vallone says, “This legislation will have an immediate and critical impact – the city will save between 5 and 7 million dollars per year, and our citizens will no longer ingest a toxic chemical every time they take a sip of water, take a shower or wash a piece of fruit.”

City Hall is located in the middle of City Hall Park in Manhattan. Allow enough time to go through security entrances – one entrance to City Hall Park and City Hall is on Broadway and the other is on Park Row.

Bring photo Identification.

Besides Councilman Vallone, other presenters include medical professionals and gifted and talented elementary school students researching fluoridation.

Vallone asks, “Please spread the word, attend and invite friends! It’s important for us to have a strong showing.”

If I get more information, I’ll send it along. Hope to see you there!

A recent article about the rally is here: http://www.licjournal.com/view/full_story/18201494/article-Battle-over-fluoride-returns-?instance=home_news_2nd_left

See you there,

Carol Kopf, Media Director

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc

and

Fluoride Action Network

Dr. George Grant - Why Does Toothpaste, Not Fluoridated Water Carry A Warning?

One of the first things to look at is a tube of toothpaste clearly carries the warning: "Do not swallow," and "in case of accidental ingestion, contact the poison control center."

The amount of fluoride they're talking about is a quarter milligram of fluoride, contained in a pea size amount of toothpaste.

But here is the kicker, This is the same amount of fluoride you find in 8 oz of water. Yet toothpaste carries a "Do not swallow" warning, whereas you're typically told to drink eight 8oz glasses of water each day, without any concern for the amount of fluoride you will ingest. Commercial Toothpaste also contains toxic formaldehyde as a filler which is used as embalming fluid! I recommend using Natural Toothpaste for all your family.

Even some dentists are up in arms about the overuse of fluoride. Dr. Osmunson, for instance, is mainly concerned about water fluoridation for infants. The American Dental Association (ADA) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommend that infants NOT receive fluoridated water for drinking, nor for making their formula, as fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than mother's milk.

Read More:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-does-toothpaste-not-fluoridated-water-carry-warning

Can Fluoride Calcify Your Arteries?

New research reveals a startling new finding: fluoride is likely contributing to the epidemic of cardiovascular disease by stimulating calcification of the vascular system, including the coronary arteries.

In a study published in the journal Nuclear Medicine Communications this month (Jan. 2012), researchers assessed fluoride uptake and calcification in the major arteries of 61 patients who were administered sodium fluoride, the active ingredient in most fluoridated toothpastes. The study revealed:

"The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events." They also found that there was a signification correlation between fluoride uptake and calcification observed in most of the arterial walls, indicating that the fluoride itself likely stimulates the precipitation of calcium within the arteries.

It is already well-known that vascular calcification is highly correlated with cardiovascular disease mortality. The hardening of the arteries associated with atherosclerosis is in part due to the calcification of plaque which subsequently becomes brittle and susceptible to breaking off into an artery-obstructing clot.

Read More:

http://greenmedinfo.com/blog/can-fluoride-calcify-your-arteries

New Scientific Data Forces Government to Reverse Its Stance on Fluoride in the Water Supply

Why are some states simply ignoring the latest studies, and passing new laws that will hurt your teeth and harm your health? Action Alert!

Water fluoridation was introduced to the United States in the 1940s as a way to use waste product from the manufacture of aluminum, a waste product that was expensive to dispose of and which was harming cattle and farmland. Since then, the federal government has taken the stance that the fluoridation of drinking water, which conveniently disposed of the waste, is vitally important to help prevent tooth decay; the CDC called it one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. But the the latest scientific studies have finally made the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) change their tune on how much fluoride is safe.

Read More:

http://www.anh-usa.org/new-scientific-data-forces-government-to-reverse-its-stance-on-fluoride-in-the-water-supply/

TAKE ACTION Against The NJ Fluoridation Bill!

1.) If you are a NJ resident and would like participate in the fight against
fluoridation, contact FAN's state coordinator, and visit No Fluoride New
Jersey.

2.) Call the offices of the Senate President and Speaker of the House. Tell
them not to ignore Assembly rules, the $5 billion dollar price tag, or the
health risks associated with fluoridation:

Here are the top people to call:

Senate Majority leader Loretta Weinberg (201) 928-0100
  She signed on as a primary sponsor of the bill S959

Senate President Steve Sweeney (856) 251-9801
  He promptly scheduled the final vote

Assembly Majority leader Louis Greenwald (856) 435-1247
  He signed on as a primary sponsor of the bill A1811

Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (973) 395-1166
  She scheduled the final vote without having the Appropriations committee
hold a hearing

Democrats have a majority in both the Senate and the Assembly. They can pass
this without any Republican votes. In the Senate Health Committee hearing,
the three Republicans who stayed for the entire hearing did not vote for the
bill. One voted NO and the other 2 ABSTAINED. (Wow, they actually listened.)

At a Governor's town hall meeting in Westfield, vaccine choice activist (Sue
Collins) asker Christie about fluoridation. Christie expressed skepticism
about it. He may be our best shot at stopping this travesty. We should call
him to encourage him to veto this bill if the Democrats ram it through.

Governor Chris Christie  609-292-6000

Anthony Gucciardi - New Research: Fluoride Linked to #1 Cause of Death

Groundbreaking new research has linked sodium fluoride to cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide.

Researchers found that fluoride consumption directly stimulates the hardening of your arteries, a condition known as atherosclerosis that is highly correlated with the #1 killer.

Sodium fluoride is currently added to the water supply of many cities worldwide, despite extreme opposition from health professionals and previous studies linking it to decreased IQ and infertility.

In their research, scientists examined the relationship between fluoride intake and the hardening (calcification) of the arteries. Studying more than 60 patients, the researchers found a significant correlation between fluoride consumption and the calcification of your arteries. Published in the January edition of the journal Nuclear Medicine Communications, the research highlights the fact that mass fluoride exposure may be to blame for the cardiovascular disease epidemic that takes more lives each year than cancer. In 2008, cardiovascular killed 17 million people.

Read More:

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/new-research-fluoride-linked-to-1-cause.html

Gary Null - The Fluoridation Fiasco

by Gary Null, Ph.D.

    There's nothing like a glass of cool, clear water to quench one's thirst. But the next time you or your child reaches for one, you might want to question whether that water is in fact, too toxic to drink. If your water is fluoridated, the answer may well be yes.

    For decades, we have been told a lie, a lie that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and the weakening of the immune systems of tens of millions more. This lie is called fluoridation. A process we were led to believe was a safe and effective method of protecting teeth from decay is in fact a fraud. In recent years it's been shown that fluoridation is neither essential for good health nor protective of teeth. What it does is poison the body. We should all at this point be asking how and why public health policy and the American media continue to live with and perpetuate this scientific sham.

How to Market a Toxic Waste

    "We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic."¹

    These words of Dr. John Yiamouyiannis may come as a shock to you because, if you're like most Americans, you have positive associations with fluoride. You may envision tooth protection, strong bones, and a government that cares about your dental needs. What you've probably never been told is that the fluoride added to drinking water and toothpaste is a crude industrial waste product of the aluminum and fertilizer industries, and a substance toxic enough to be used as rat poison. How is it that Americans have learned to love an environmental hazard? This phenomenon can be attributed to a carefully planned marketing program begun even before Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first community to officially fluoridate its drinking water in 1945.² As a result of this ongoing campaign, nearly two-thirds of the nation has enthusiastically followed Grand Rapids' example. But this push for fluoridation has less to do with a concern for America's health than with industry's penchant to expand at the expense of our nation's well-being.

    The first thing you have to understand about fluoride is that it's the problem child of industry. Its toxicity was recognized at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when, in the 1850s iron and copper factories discharged it into the air and poisoned plants, animals, and people.³ The problem was exacerbated in the 1920s when rapid industrial growth meant massive pollution. Medical writer Joel Griffiths explains that "it was abundantly clear to both industry and government that spectacular U.S. industrial expansion - and the economic and military power and vast profits it promised - would necessitate releasing millions of tons of waste fluoride into the environment."⁴ Their biggest fear was that "if serious injury to people were established, lawsuits alone could prove devastating to companies, while public outcry could force industry-wide government regulations, billions in pollution-control costs, and even mandatory changes in high-fluoride raw materials and profitable technologies."⁵

Click to read more ...