SIXTY REASONS TO OPPOSE THE ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION OF THE DRINKING WATER

 

by Thomas C. Petrie, B.S.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Fluoridation is the process by which fluoride is artificially added to a community’s drinking water supply to reduce tooth decay.  Two compounds are usually used: sodium fluoride or hydrofluosilicic acid (or its sodium salt).  Sixty percent of the drinking water in America is fluoridated at this time.  The measure is highly controversial.

 

Initially, fluoridation was proposed by a Pittsburgh University biochemist on the payroll of the Mellon Institute.  It was in 1939 that Dr. Gerald Cox proposed that fluoride be added to the drinking water to prevent tooth decay.  This was during a speech before the W. Pennsylvania section of the American Waterworks Association.  At this time, ALCOA  (The Aluminum Company of America) was involved with lawsuits for poisoning cattle exposed to their fluoride affluent and had sought help from the Mellon Institute in ‘solving’ this problem.  (Much of the early research regarding fluoride at Tuft’s Dental School and The University of Rochester School of Dentistry, was funded by ALCOA, but this is another story!)  After Dr. Cox’s original speech, many factors came into play regarding the promotion of fluoridated water.  Regard-less of the crazy early history of fluoridation, by 1951, the ‘fluoridation bandwagon’ was well on its way. It has been going strong every since. 

 

Even if fluoridation were effective in reducing tooth decay, if there is any evidence that its use presents potential health dangers, serious or unanswered questions over its safety should preclude its use as an agent to be added to the water supply.  Here are sixty reasons why it should be stopped.  (Note, the numbers have been eliminated to make for easier reading.)

 

This concise review will review this evidence and discuss a range of cogent concerns.  After reading this article, one may wonder how the oft-assumed conclusion that the subject of fluoride and fluoridation is ‘non-debatable’ could ever have been taken seriously!  The more one studies the issue, the more ‘odd’ it seems that such a preposterous idea as mass medication of the water with a dangerous compound like fluoride could have been considered, let alone instituted!

 

The initial promotion of fluoridation was not based on science and a ‘deep concern for the teeth of our poor children’ but on politics.  The major players in this ‘game’ were ALCOA, (as just mentioned), involved with several lawsuits regarding fluoride caused damage to crops and cattle, and the Nuclear Industry, particularly involving the Manhattan project and atomic weapon production.  (Hydrogen fluoride was used in extracting high grade Uranium 238 from its ore.)  The Sugar Association also played a significant role as did several misguided and rather zealous individuals.  (For an excellent summary of the early politics of fluoridation, refer to A Struggle with Titans by Dr. George Waldbott, 1965.)

 

Let’s start with some basic definitions.  Then questions about the nature of fluoridation and various related issues will then be considered.  Finally, a discussion of the many deleterious effects of fluoride will take place.

 

SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS

 

Definition: Fluorine is defined as “a non-metallic halogen element that is a pale yellowish flammable irritating and toxic diatomic gas.”  (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1991)  Fluoride is any chemical compound which contains the element fluorine.  It is highly reactive.  Indeed, fluorine reacts with other elements more readily than any other chemical element!  As will be discussed later, it is this extremely high reactivity that accounts for virtually all of fluoride’s toxic effects on plant, animal and human life.

 

According the 1994 issue of the Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Compounds, Fluoride is listed as having a toxicity rating (4.5) higher than that for lead (4.0) and slightly less than that of arsenic (5.0).  The scale goes from 1-6.  If fluoride is more toxic than lead, how come the standard for its presence in water is fifty times higher than that for a compound that is less toxic?  According to the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, third Edition, The Pharmacological action of fluoride, with the possible exception of its effect on bone, can be classified as “toxic.”

 

ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT?

 

Fluoride is NOT an essential nutrient.  No biological processes exist that require fluoride for their proper functioning.  Early laboratory studies showing fluoride to be essential have since been shown to be faulty because of serious deficiencies of other essential nutrients.  Fluoride is ‘available’ only by prescription, unless one also ‘pays attention’ to canned soups, soda, beer, fruit juices, (some containing up to 6.8 ppm fluoride!), ‘fluoridated spring water’, canned sardines, commercially sprayed/raised fruits and vegetables, commercially raised coffee, green tea, tobacco, fluoridated toothpaste, fluoridated mouth rinses, certain other medications etc.) 

 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG

 

Fluoride is a prescription drug.  One liter of fluoridated water provides the so-called ‘recommended dose’ of 1.0 milligram (mg.) per day.  A child drinking mostly soda (manufactured in a non-fluoridated area) will get less than a diabetic or day laborer who drinks three quarts of fluoridated water each day.  Still, the fluoridation program ignores this question: total consumption.  The Physician’s Desk Reference lists numerous possible side effects from the consumption of but one-half milligram of fluoride.  This is but the amount of fluoride in two glasses (16.9 ounces) of fluoridated water.  And if the DOSE of a prescription drug IS important, why is it NOT important with fluoridated water? 

 

MEDICAL ETHICS

 

Unlike chlorination which is meant to treat the water, fluoridation is meant to treat the person.  It is designed to alter some physiological process, namely, the mineralization of teeth.  Environmental scientists, biologists, horticulturists and veterinarians have known for years that fluoride in very low concentrations can poison or damage plants of all kinds, harm all kinds of aquatic life, pets and livestock.  Chemists have learned to expect this element to cause all sorts of mayhem and cell biologists and biochemists have learnt that fluoride is a good first choice as a poisoner of crucial enzyme systems.  (Proponents of fluoridation often will dispute these facts; successfully refuting them is an impossible proposition.)  Chlorination also has significant deleterious effects on the human body however, this halogen is not the subject of this article.

 

Fluoridation contravenes standard medical ethics where a dose of a drug is adjusted or regulated according to a person’s state of health, body-weight, degree of potentially complicating health ‘challenges’, and, last but not least, whether or not they want the drug!  With fluoridated water, everyone must consume the drug, whether they have diabetes, kidney disease, or other health problems potentially exacerbated by fluoride.  If a person does not want to consume this prescription drug, they have no choice if their water is fluoridated.

 

No city or state has, in place, a ‘warning program’ for diabetics, marathon runners, those with kidney disease or any others who may have an increased water intake.  Indeed, one of the side-effects of excessive fluoride exposure is the development of polydypsia, or excessive thirst and polyuria, (excessive urination).  Most school students know someone who is constantly drinking water.  Fluoride is often the reason.  Because of the widespread belief in the total safety of fluoride, these problems are totally ignored in fluoridated towns and cities around America.

 

CURRENT TOTAL INTAKE OF FLUORIDE FROM ALL SOURCES

 

The intake of water can vary tremendously from person to person.  Some people drink very little water, others have an excess water intake.  Most filters do NOT remove fluoride and, unlike chlorine, which evaporates upon boiling, fluorine concentrates.  In addition to large potential variations in individual water intake, blood levels can vary tremendously with just small variations in intake.  In 1976, for example, scientists at Sweden’s Karonlinska Institute developed a simple and reliable way of measuring levels of ionic fluoride in the blood.  They found even very small dosages of fluoride to cause ‘normal’ blood fluoride levels to surge to potentially harmful values.

 

Even if one milligram were a useful and safe dose, the total intake of fluoride from all sources already exceeds the recommended dose—whether one lives in a fluoridated or a non-fluoridated community.  The total intake in a non-fluoridated community ranges from 1.4 to 3.9 milligrams per day.  The total intake in a fluoridated community ranges from 2.1 to 7.05 milligrams per day!  Thus, even without fluoridated water, people around the country are getting up to 340 percent more than the ‘recommended’ amount.  Sources of fluoride (besides artificially fluoridated water) include air pollution, (it is one of our top ten air pollutants), prescription vitamins, (Poly-Vi-Flur), fluoride toothpaste, mouth rinses (both commercial and in school fluoride mouth rinse programs), pesticide residues in foods, (especially heavily sprayed crops like coffee) and various drugs, tobacco (up to 3.0 mgs per pack!), and lastly, a huge variety of foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas.  The later could include soda, beer, soups and cereals.  For example, a 60 gm portion of canned sardines could contribute 0.96 mg. fluoride and many heavy tea drinkers can get an additional one milligram from tea alone.  (Black tea is very high in fluoride.)  If one is to believe that one milligram per day is the ‘safe and effective dose’ of this drug, then one must conclude that our children are already getting more than this recommended dose WITHOUT fluoridated water. 

 

Authorities from around the world have spoken of ‘fluoride overkill.’  In support of the evidence that total fluoride intake is excessive, intelligent dental authorities are recommending no fluoride for babies under six months of age—regardless of whether or not the water is fluoridated.  This change was prompted by the disturbing rise in total fluoride intake and negative health effects, such as ‘dental fluorosis’ caused by fluoride.

 

In 1982, an article by Dennis H. Leverett appeared that discussed some of the dangers of excessive fluoride intake.  Entitled “Fluorides and the Changing Prevalence of Dental Caries,” this article acknowledged that present levels of fluoride in use with artificial fluoridation programs are producing more than twice as much dental fluorosis (28% v. 12%) as originally expected.  He concluded that: “the optimum concentration of fluoride in community water supplies needs to be reassessed.” [Science, Vol. 217, July 2, 1982].  (For further discussions of dental fluorosis, see points 33-35.)

 

FLUORIDE, THE AIR POLLUTANT

 

In some areas around the country, fluoride is a serious air pollutant.  It is readily absorbed into the lungs, (bypassing the intestinal tract, where fluoride absorption is inhibited to some extent).  Fluoride is listed as two of the top ten ‘greenhouse gases,’ (sulfur-hexafluoride and chlorofluorocarbons), proposed to be regulated in the Kyoto accords.  (These are the 1997 accords on global climate change that the U.S.A refused to sign.)  While its contribution to global warming is relatively minor at this point, a greater concern is the ever increasing poisoning of our environment by fluoride in waste-water around America, a problem that has been almost totally ignored.   (See www.fluoridealert.org for more details.)

 

A STRANGE HISTORY

 

The chemicals used in ninety percent of U.S. water fluoridation programs are industrial-grade hazardous wastes captured in the pollution-control scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry.  (See Fluorine recovery in the fertilizer industry, a review, Phosphorus and Potassium, no. 103, Sept/Oct, 1979).  More recent proof of an industry association to the promotion of fluoridation comes from a statement made by the then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water of the United States E.P.A., dated March 30, 1983:

 

“In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem.  By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.”

 

Between June 6th and 8th, 1951, at a meeting in Washington, D.C. of fifty State Dental Directors, Francis Bull, D.D.S. had this to say about the importance of ‘scientific’ study of fluoridation:’  (p 19):  “Why do we do a ‘pre-fluoridation survey’?  Is it to show that fluoride works?  No, we have already told the public that fluoridation works, so we can’t go back on that.”  (Note, this was in the middle of the ten-year ‘demonstrations’ previously set up in Newburgh, New York and Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Transcript of original meeting was made public 17 years after it took place.  Author has a copy of said transcript.) 

 

On the question of toxicity, this is what Bull had to say:  “Lay off it altogether; just pass it over.”  On the question of ‘experiments’ we don’t use this word, we use ‘demonstrations.’  We don’t call it ‘artificial fluoridation,’ but ‘controlled’ fluoridation.’  We don’t add fluoride, we ‘adjust’ it.  And as it is, such abuse of language with regards to fluoride is still with us today.  George Orwell would be impressed with the ability and willingness of the pro-fluoridationists to abuse and adjust the English language to support their purposes! 

In 1961, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Health published a booklet entitled, “How to Appeal to the People on Fluoridation.” (Guide #5).  Among other things, it gave the following advice:“Fluoridation is no longer a debatable point.  There are not two sides.  When you permit the opposition to argue the case with a proponent in public debate, you are giving credence to the idea that fluoridation is debatable” (!) “Never let the antis state something against fluoridation and then catch yourself answering them.  Keep them on the defensive.  Ridicule them.  Try to get the people to laugh at the antis.” It implied that sound scientific evidence unfavorable to fluoridation should be disregarded.  And thus, some forty years later, through these and other politically deceptive ‘guidelines’ we find ourselves in such a huge mess today! 

 

Repeating over and over and over that “Fluoridation is safe and effective and never harmed anyone” or that “fluoridation is simply an ‘adjustment’ of the concentration of fluoride to the ‘optimum’ level” is not a scientific statement.  A brief study of the subject will explain why.  The worldwide literature will show thousands of reasons fluoridation is not safe and no rationale—that could pass a minimum level of scientific scrutiny—would lead one to unconditionally support the measure.  Even the ‘calcium fluoride,’ found in natural high fluoride waters, is twenty-five times less  toxic than the silicofluorides or sodium fluoride added in artificial fluoridation programs.  In addition, the presence of calcium fluoride, (with very few exceptions nationwide), is buffered with the presence of other beneficial minerals.  Thus, claims that fluoride added just ‘adjusts’ the level to ‘optimum’ level may sound good to the uninformed, but on closer examination, are meaningless. 

 

Regarding the importance of ‘avoiding debate,’ this is not unlike the advice given in the July 1965 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, in which similar advice was given: “The question of the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation is no longer considered debatable in the scientific community.”  If you were a dentist at this time, would YOU speak against fluoridation?  Not if it meant censure, loss of status, income, prestige, etc.!  These points are not being brought up to be negative however, one needs to be aware of our history of the subject!  This history goes far to explain how so much negative information has been and continues to be kept from the American people on such a dangerous chemical.   Not surprisingly, the constant unjust ridicule opponents almost always receive when making a case against fluoridation, has resulted in very few persons (dentists or not) with the courage and guts to speak out.  It has also resulted in a media that has scarcely tried to do any original investigative reporting on its own, relying instead, on the broad sweeping pronouncements of proponent individuals and organizations.  Of course, if virtually all negative data on a subject are ridiculed or ignored, it can scarcely be said that a climate conducive to open and lively discussions of all sides can comfortably exist!  Another tool with which fluoridation has been kept alive is the power of endorsements.

 

Endorsements have helped keep fluoridation alive, yet most are from organizations that have done no original research of their own.  In fact, many can be seen as simply ‘favors’ given at the request of powerful, national groups.  Many examples could be cited but will not be because of space considerations.  [See Fluoridation, the Great Dilemma, (Chapter 16, Endorsements, and Chapter 18, Why the Ignorance?), by George L. Waldbott, M.D., in collaboration with Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D., H. Lewis McKinney, Ph.D., Coronado Press, 1978.]

 

No discussion of fluoridation would be complete without reference to the role of fluoride in tooth decay reduction!  Many readers may feel that at least this is an area in which fluoridation has a ‘proven benefit.’  It certainly seems plausible and, a reader believing in this stance would certainly have a lot of company.  Unfortunately, this is company that is wrong!  The ways in which the thesis that fluoride reduces tooth decay can be disproved may be broken into four categories. (1) Human epidemiological studies, (2) Careful analysis of the flaws of earlier ‘pro-fluoridation’ studies, (3) patterns of dental practice in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated towns and cities and, of course, (4) animal studies.  It also helps to know whether or not the ‘researchers’ are trying to prove whether or not fluoride reduces tooth decay or are carrying out ‘demonstration projects’ to prove a forgone conclusion that it DOES work!

 

TOOTH DECAY REDUCTION STUDIES: FLAWS IN EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA IN EARLY TRIALS/DEMONSTRATIONS

 

Early fluoridation trials were poorly controlled.  For example, in the fluoridated city of Newburgh, New York, (where Kingston was the unfluoridated town), the concentration of other minerals in the water (that could have a bearing on the tooth decay progression of children), was ignored.  More specifically, the levels of calcium and magnesium in the Newburgh drinking water were four times higher in fluoridated Newburgh!  Dental defects after the study began were significantly higher in fluoridated Newburgh.  More recently, a study published in the New York State Dental Journal, (Feb. 1998, p. 40-47) showed that there was NO difference in the decay rates of children in long time fluoridated Newburgh v. unfluoridated nearby Kingston.  Still, the incidence of dental defects in Newburgh was about sixty percent higher than the rate in Kingston.  (It’s no wonder that after fifty-five years, Kingston still rejects fluoridation of their drinking water.)  In addition, studies conducted in the early to late 1950’s to ascertain whether or not ill effects occurred, suffered from huge examiner bias and fatal study design errors.  These included pooling of urine samples, rejection of persons suffering any ill effects (no matter how mild), within two weeks after starting the study, etc.

 

Important note on one of earliest ‘fluoride studies’:  In one of the other early trials, Grand Rapids, Michigan was chosen to be fluoridated while nearby Muskegon was unfluoridated.  Half way through the study, it was noticed that the tooth decay rate for Grand Rapids was going down.  Hardly mentioned by the proponents of fluoridation was this fact:  The tooth decay rate for unfluoridated Muskegon was going down equally as much as for Grand Rapids!   No problem, we’ll only issue press releases on the wonderful results received in Grand Rapids after just five years and begin to fluoridate Muskegon.  We’ll simply claim that ‘we could not deprive the residents of Muskegon of the many benefits of fluoridation!’  This is the kind of nonsense exhibited at the early fluoridation trials.  Not science, but ‘demonstrations.’  Not a ‘search for truth,’ but a search for ‘justification’ for a policy to which commitment had already been stronger than could possibly be justified by the scientific evidence.

 

Other researchers showing the flaws in early fluoridation trials include Dr. Rudolf Ziegelbecker, a physicist and researcher on environmental problems caused by fluoride.  It was upon his research that Germany stopped fluoridating their water in 1973.  He assisted the Dutch in banning fluoridation in 1976.  His research shows no association between the fluoride content of the drinking water and tooth decay reduction.  Since he published his first paper on the dangers of fluoridated water, he has been subject to constant attacks from prominent fluoride promoters.  One doctor even tried to stop his research in Austria.  Such political pressure to ‘conform’ is nothing new to anyone who dares to do independent thinking on the subject of fluoridation and its real or potential hazards.  [Austrian Researcher Refutes Benefit Claims, NFN, Winter, 1983, p. 3-4.]

 

Mark Diesendorf, an Australian Mathematician and statistician has called for a “scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation.”  In an article in Nature, [Vol. 322, July 10, 1086], Diesendorf examined the “Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay” in a detailed report.  He noted that in some cases a ‘pre-fluoride’ decline that, nonetheless, would be attributed to fluoridated water.  Twenty-four studies were evaluated that showed similar reductions in tooth decay, world wide, whether the water was fluoridated or not.  “The main ethical argument that fluoridation would help the disadvantaged, is not borne out by this study,” Diesendorf is quoted as saying.

 

The original fluoridated cities do NOT show fluoride to reduce tooth decay, over the long term!  Both Waldbott [A Struggle with Titans, 1965, p. 57] and others [P.R.N. Sutton, Errors and Omissions in Early Fluoridation Trials, 1979], have shown that fluoride simply delays the onset of caries from one to three years.  However, the rate of increase of tooth decay is the same in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities!  This delay is probably due to fluoride’s known disruption in thyroid functioning or its interference in the body’s production of melatonin.  It also could be due to other mechanisms since fluoride disrupts numerous essential enzyme systems in the body, and at current fluoride consumption levels, even without fluoridated water.  This delayed effect is also seen in animals poisoned by fluoride emissions from nearby aluminum refining plants.  [See, Krook, Leonart, Ph.D, “Chronic Fluoride Poisoning in Cornwall Island Cattle,” Cornell Veterinarian, Vol. 69, Suppl. 8, April, 1979.  The author was a student at Cornell University when he personally discussed this problem with Krook, the then Dean of the Veterinary college.]

 

In 1938, H. Trentley Dean (often called the ‘father of fluoridation,’) cited research showing that tooth decay decreased with increasing concentrations of fluoride in the drinking water.  Unfortunately, Dean ‘selected’ his cities from across the United States to ‘prove’ his assertion.  He also made no effort to control for other minerals in the drinking water or for total fluoride intake.  Indeed by his own standards, his studies must be disavowed.  To eliminate the flaws in Deans early studies, (those conducted in the late 1930’s and 1940’s), in 1970, Losee and Biddy reviewed Deans early works.  When the flaws were factored in, it was shown that there was no difference  in the incidence of tooth decay with increasing concentrations of fluoride in the drinking water.  What was seen (and Dean never denied this), was that as the fluoride concentration increased in the drinking water, the level of dental fluorosis increased as well.  (Recall that dental fluorosis is the first clinical sign of fluoride poisoning.)  [Fred Losee and Basel Biddy, “Caries Inhibition by Trace Elements Other than Fluoride,” New York State Dental Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 15-19, 1970.]

 

Also in 1938, Wallace Armstrong claimed that fluoride had a role in preventing tooth decay. However, twenty-five years later, in 1963, he admitted he had made a mistake in the interpretation of his original research of 1938!  He failed to note that the concentration of fluoride in teeth naturally increases as a person gets older, regardless of the caries experience of that individual!  [Wallace Armstrong and P.J. Brekhus, “Possible Relationship Between the Fluorine Content of Enamel and Resistance to Dental Caries,” Jour. Dent. Res., Vol. 17, pp.393-399, 1938;  See also: Wallace Armstrong and Leon Singer, “Fluoride Contents of Enamel of Sound and Carious Human Teeth: A Reinvestigation,” Jour. Dent. Res, Vol. 42, pp. 133-136, 1963.]

 

STUDIES SHOW FLUORIDATION NOT WORKING  IN REDUCING TOOTH DECAY

 

In 1946, Ottawa Kansas began a fluoridation program only to see tooth decay increase by 100 percent over the next three years.  [Charles Scrivener, “Unfavorable Report from a Kansas Community Using Artificial Fluoridation of City Water Supply for a Three Year Period,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 30, no. 4, p. 465, 1951.]  This may have been due, at least in part, to a certain ‘complacency’ amongst the general population regarding the continuation of good oral care because of the presence of fluoride in their drinking water!

 

 

In 1953, Gallagan compared the tooth decay rates of 26,000 children from Arizona with varying concentrations of fluoride in their drinking water.  His findings were that there was no correlation between fluoride levels in the water and tooth decay rates.  [David Galagan, “Climate and Controlled Fluoridation,” JADA, Vol. 47, pp. 159-170, 1953.]

 

In 1955, Zimmerman compared the tooth decay rates in Bartlett, Texas (8.0 ppm fluoride) to Cameron, Texas, (0.4 ppm fluoride).  His finding was that there was no difference in the incidence of tooth decay in the high v. low fluoride communities.  Still, the death rate in high fluoride Bartlett was over twice as high as it was in Cameron!  Indeed, due to the health problems caused by the high levels of fluoride in the town of Bartlett, they had to install de-fluoridation equipment in the late 50’s.  [Eugene Zimmerman, “Oral Aspects of Excessive Fluorides in a Water Supply,” JADA, vol. 50, pp. 272-277, 1955.]

 

A Tokyo study published in 1972 involving over 20,000 children showed that there was more tooth decay with increasing concentrations of fluoride in the drinking water.  [Yoshitsugu Imai, “Relation Between Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water and Dental Caries in Japan,” Koku Eisei Gakkai Zasshi, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 144-196, 1972.  This study was quoted in Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, the Aging Factor, pg. 101.]

 

A 1988 study involving 39,207 American children divided into 84 regions of the country, found that ‘decayed, missing and filled’ (DMF) scores to be identical in those consuming versus those not consuming fluoridated water (2.0 v. 2.0). For those consuming partially fluoridated water there was a slight, though insignificant difference.  The author of the study had to go through the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ to get the data because the National Institutes for Dental Research would not release the data despite having received several requests for it!  (I lived and worked with the author in Columbus, Ohio, in 1992, so I know this as a fact.)  [Yiamouyiannis, J.: NIDR Study Shows No Relationship Between Fluoridation and Tooth Decay Rate, Amer. Laboratory, May, 1989, p. 9-10.]

 

A study involving over 400,000 children from India, found the following results:  As the fluoride concentration increased in the drinking water, so too did the incidence of tooth decay.  It should be noted that India is one of several countries in which fluoride poisoning is a major public health challenge.  And children are suffering with intakes of fluoride similar to that found in the United States.  However, their diets are much worse than in America.  Since the absorption of fluoride is inhibited by other minerals, such as calcium, and their calcium intake is very low, the higher levels of skeletal fluorosis are not hard to understand.  [Teotia S.P.S., Teotia M., Dental Caries: a Disorder of High Fluoride and Low Dietary Calcium Interactions (representing thirty years of personal research), Fluoride, April, 27:2, 59-66, 1994.]

 

Two New Zealand studies show no reduction of tooth decay from fluoridated water.  In fact, Colquhoun’s data shows a slight increase in tooth decay after fluoridation started.   [John Colquhoun, “Fluoridation in New Zealand: New Evidence, Part One,” American Laboratory, Vol. 17, pp. 66-72, 1985.]

 

A 1987 study published in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, then dental director of the province of British Columbia, Dr. A. S. Gray, wrote: “School districts reporting the highest caries free rates (e.g., no tooth decay) in the province, were totally unfluoridated.  That various state health departments around America are ‘selling’ fluoride as the only effective way of reducing tooth decay is clearly a misguided procedure.  It simply does not work.”

 

Newspapers around the country have reported ‘super bad teeth’ ‘serious dental problems’ ‘poor need more dentists’ in towns that have been fluoridated for ten, twenty and more years.  Unfortunately, Medicaid reimbursement for Dentists is minimal and Dentist’s don’t like to work for little money.  [“City to launch battle against dental ‘crisis’,” by Dolores Kong, Boston Globe, 11/27/99;  “U.S. Is Doubling Dentists To Treat the Poor in (New York) City”, 1/5/80.  Note, New York City has been fluoridated since 1965.]

 

Three of the cities fluoridated for the over thirty years (New York City, Newburgh, NY and Grand Rapids, Michigan), have tooth decay rates that are identical to the national average.  [Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, the Aging Factor, @1986, graph on pg. 105.]

 

NUTRIENTS IN WATER, OTHER THAN FLUORIDE, HAVE A ROLE IN TOOTH DECAY PREVENTION

 

In 1954, George W. Heard became famous for his ‘Town without a Toothache’ in Deaf Smith County, Texas.  Proponents of fluoridation were quick to point out the high concentration of fluoride in their water and attempted to give fluoride ‘all the credit.’  However, the following year, in 1955, Dr. Lewis B. Barnett reviewed the data on mineral content of the soil and water in this county.  His conclusion?  Fluoride was not the answer, magnesium and other minerals were!  Other researchers in the area also credited high levels of calcium, boron and strontium with the reduced incidence of tooth decay.  Recent studies have since shown a stronger association to other minerals such as Strontium in water and tooth decay prevention than to fluoride.  (See, for example, the Losee and Bibby study quoted above.)  Please note that if all one hears is ‘fluoride, fluoride, fluoride,’ it is unlikely such an individual will give a second thought to the ‘essential’ minerals proven to have something to do with preventing tooth decay. 

 

Studies of the incidence of tooth decay around the world continue to show a declining incidence of decay around the world.  It should be noted that the vast majority of countries, have refused to fluoridate or stopped fluoridating some time after starting.  In addition, this worldwide decline in tooth decay is true whether or not a city or town is fluoridated or not.  This is also true in America where tooth decay has been going down whether or not a town is fluoridated or not.  Adding to the worldwide data showing fluoridation to be of dubious benefit is the article published in the “Chemical and Engineering News,” May 8, 1989.  Entitled, “New Studies Cast Doubt on Fluoridation Benefits,” it detailed, once again, how the alleged benefits of fluoridation are simply not present.  When asked by a C&EN, a spokesman for the American Dental Association said that the ADA believes water fluoridation can reduce tooth decay 18-25%.  Yet, just one year earlier, they were claiming a reduction of 40 – 60 % from water fluoridation.

 

THE ROLE OF DIET IN REDUCING TOOTH DECAY

 

Studies of various peoples from around the world continue to show that those living on diets very low in refined carbohydrates continue to enjoy to best oral health.  Examples include the Otomi Indians of Mexico, the Bedouins of Israel and the Ibos of Nigeria.  That the fluoride content of their drinking water is very low doesn’t seem to matter.  These folks have some of the best teeth in the world.  The United States has some sixty percent of its residents drinking fluoridated water and yet, it has one of the highest rates of tooth decay in the world.  Not surprisingly, it also has one of the highest intakes of sugar.  Evidently, sugar causes tooth decay, yet fluoride does not prevent decay.

 

In the seven million dollar 1980 Robert Wood Johnson study, the findings questioned the value of school-based fluoride mouth-rinse and tablet programs because of their relatively high cost and low effectiveness.  The principal investigator of the study results was the Rand Corporation.  Dr. Stephen P. Klein, the Rand Corporation principal investigator had this to say about this finding:  “That means $60,000,000 is being spit down the drain.”  Yet, this study, despite not being designed to test for the benefits of water fluoridation, is being used to ‘promote’ the benefits of water fluoridation!  Some are quoting this study as proving a “thirty-five percent reduction” in tooth decay.  Never mind that this reduction may represent less than two tooth surfaces out of a total of 128.  The study suffered from numerous other fatal flaws that space prevents discussing further.

 

Frequently cited as ‘proof’ of fluoride’s efficacy in reducing tooth decay is a report found in the World Health Organization task force of 1984.  Apparently without any independent investigation, the authors of this WHO report replicated a chart of data produced by Murray and Rugg-Gunn in 1979.  [Murray, J.J. and Rugg-Gunn, A.J.: “Fluorides in Caries Prevention,” 2nd ed., Wright, Briscol, 1982.]  They stated that “…120 fluoridation studies from all continents showed a reduction in caries in the range of 50 to 75 % for permanent teeth.”  The vast majority of these ‘studies’ were not studies at all!  After the numerous situations in which data was ‘duplicated,’ ‘studies’ that weren’t really ‘studies’ were eliminated, 19 studies were ‘left’ that could be considered studies.  All these had to be rejected because of faulty experimental design.”  [P.R.N. Sutton, “Fluoridation of Water,” Chemical and Engineering News, 67, Vol. 4, Jan. 23, 1989.]

 

Surveys of the patterns of practice of dentists around the country reveal no difference in income levels, the amount of money spent or the length of time patients spend in their dentists’ chair.  In fact, according to a 1972 survey of the American Dental Association, dentists make more money in fluoridated communities, although it is only an four percent increase.  If fluoridation truly reduced tooth decay by 65 percent, patterns of dental practice would certainly show evidence that fluoride has some effect.  Another review of dental practice patterns in fluoridated and unfluoridated towns across America revealed the same thing:  Fluoridation is having minimal effect on the income of dentists or the expenditure of residents living in fluoridated towns and cities.  These facts are consistent with the fact that fluoride does NOT reduce tooth decay over the long term.

 

Fluoride does NOT reduce tooth decay in laboratory animals.  No laboratory experiment has ever been conducted that shows fluoride to reduce tooth decay.  [The 1938 Cox Rat study:  No difference in the decay rates of rats consuming vs. not consuming fluoridated water;  The 1957 Ockerse and deJager Monkey study: no difference in the decay rates of monkeys consuming v. not consuming fluoridated water;  The 1962 Edward Sweeney rat study: no difference in the decay rates of rats consuming v. not consuming fluoridated water;  The 1971 Hardwick and Bunting rat study: no difference in the decay rates of rats consuming v. not consuming fluoridated water.  References available upon request.]

 

THE RANGE BETWEEN TOXIC AND SAFE DOSES

 

The range between the dose ‘likely to be consumed’ and its toxic dose should be at least one to one hundred.  While this is true for most compounds with mass exposure, it is NOT true with fluoride!  The recommended dose for fluoride is 1.0 milligrams and its potentially toxic dose is just 2.0 milligrams!  Not withstanding that in 1988, due to political pressure from the state of South Carolina, and elsewhere, not scientific evidence, the EPA raised the ‘maximum contaminate level’ (MCL) of fluoride to 4.0 ppm in the drinking water, (from 1.8 to 2.4 ppm).  Still, nothing has been done to refute the fact that the range between the toxic dose and ‘safe’ dose may be slim to non-existent.  The toxicity of fluoride will also depend upon one’s general state of health, calcium intake (and intake of other nutrients) and urine pH.  It is important to consider this extremely low to non-existent ‘range of safety’ regarding fluoride when considering its numerous deleterious effects on the human organism.

 

If a person tends towards a high urinary pH, they may retain from 250 to 450 percent more fluoride than a person tending towards an alkaline urinary pH level!  Thus, anyone with diabetes, kidney disease or anyone on an excessively ‘acidic’ diet (e.g., high meat, protein, soda, low fruit and vegetable consumption, etc.), may be retaining dangerous levels of fluoride!  [Gary M. Whitford and David H. Pashley, et. al, American Journal of Physiology, Feb., 1976.]  It should be noted that these researchers were pro-fluoride having received funding from the very pro-fluoride National Institutes for Dental Research.  They were just reporting facts, claiming the potential importance of keeping the urine acidic to increase fluoride retention!  Such a claim can now be seen to be clearly absurd, in light of the ever increasing evidence of ‘excessive’ fluoride exposure from all sources!  The average American eats too many ‘acid forming foods,’ and not enough ‘alkalizing’ foods (most all fresh fruits and vegetables promote alkalinity and improved health).  Thus, our dietary habits are INCREASING the potentially toxic effects of fluoride on our bodies!   For those unfamiliar with the importance of keeping an ‘alkaline’ or alkalizing diet, refer to any number of books on the subject.  The top three would be Fit for Life (by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond, @1985), Alkalize or Die, by Theodore Brahoody @1980 and more recently, the pH Miracle).

 

SAFETY TESTING OF COMMONLY USED FLUORIDE CHEMICALS!

 

The products used in water fluoridation have NEVER been tested on humans for safety:  Regarding the silicofluorides used in ninety percent of U.S. Fluoridation programs, EPA states, “In collecting the date for our fact sheet, EPA was not able to identify chronic studies for these chemicals.”  (Letter of June 23, 1999 from EPA Asst. Adm. J. Charles Fox to US Representative Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and The Environment, Washington, D.C.)  As previously noted, they are crude waste products and are not treated for removal of other toxins such as cadmium, arsenic, lead and other compounds!  And to repeat: There are NO studies to document harm or lack there-of on the general population, who for over fifty years, have been used as guinea pigs in this ‘experiment!’  If you were to dump these compounds in a local river or stream without a permit, you’d likely be charged with a crime.  However, if your use them for fluoridation projects, you can, for example, add 55,000 gallons of the stuff to the New York City’s drinking water every day—without any threat of being fined or charged with breaking any law!  That’s because this form of water pollution is legal!  No wonder fluoride is nick-named the ‘protected pollutant!’

 

THE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON HUMAN BEINGS

 

The dangerous effects of fluoride on the human body cover a wide range of health challenges that are regularly seen in any doctor’s office or hospital.  Far from being reactionary and irresponsible, to blame fluoride for some part in our country’s health problems would not only be accurate, but ethically necessary!  As the reader will recall, there is an ever-increasing concentration, and yes, contamination of our everyday environment because of fluoride—both that used purposefully (tooth-pastes, mouth rinses, fluoridated water) and that used ‘accidentally’ (fluoride in beer, tea, sardines, drugs containing fluoride, etc.).  Dental fluorosis is known as being a serious symptom of the excessive intake of fluoride.  It is this major public health challenge on which our discussion of ‘health dangers of fluoride’ will begin.

 

DENTAL FLUOROSIS (MOTTLED TEETH)

 

Dental Fluorosis is the first clinical sign of fluoride poisoning.  Hundreds of studies show the incidence of dental fluorosis increasing around the United States.  Contrary to the claims of most proponents of fluoridation, this is not simply a cosmetic effect, neither is it due significantly to antibiotic use (such as tetracycline) in children as has been frequently claimed.

 

More than a ‘cosmetic effect’ dental fluorosis is an indication that the tooth forming cells (the collagen producing cells called the amelioblasts), have been poisoned at some stage during tooth formation.  After looking at all sources of fluoride intake, Leverett stated: “Since fluorosis can occur with a fluoride intake as low as 0.01 mg. per kilogram of body weight, per day, this finding suggests that the optimal intake may have been exceeded.  (Leverett is a dental researcher from the Dept. of Community Dentistry, Eastman Dental Center, Rochester, NY.)  Numerous studies show a greatly excessive total exposure to fluoride, even without artificial water fluoridation.  For this reason alone, states that have implemented statewide or compulsory fluoridation programs should see them stopped.  (It was for the PA legislature that the first version of this article was written.  It is essentially the same.)

 

Studies on rats show that blood ionic fluoride levels of 0.2 ppm to cause dental fluorosis.  Rats are from one seventh to one tenth less sensitive to fluoride than humans!  [New Scientist, May 5, 1983]  Proponents of fluoridation like to claim that dangerous blood levels of fluoride can’t happen.  To support this claim, they often quote a 1960 study that purports to show that a physiological mechanism ensures that blood levels of ionic fluoride remain stable no matter what the intake  [Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 15, 1960. p. 508].  Unfortunately the faults of this early work were clearly outlined in the Report of the Safe Drinking Water Committee, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, p. 373, Wash., D.C., 1980.  It is now known that dangerous blood levels of fluoride are reached much more frequently than acknowledged.

 

SUSCEPTIBLE SUB-SETS OF POPULATION AT RISK

 

In 1993, the US Department of Health and Environmental Services (HHS) produced a Toxicological Profile on fluoride (TP 91/17).  In this profile, it stated that: “Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds.  These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems.  Post-menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at increased risk of developing fractures.”  (It turns out that calcium, magnesium and vitamin C are the best nutrients to minimize the toxic effects of fluoride as well.)

 

ACUTE TOXICITY OF FLUORIDE

 

Children have died from swallowing topical fluoride.  For example, the January 20, 1979 New York Times reported on a parent being awarded $750,000 for the death of their three-year old child.  He had just gone in for a ‘routine fluoride treatment’ swallowed some of what was put on his teeth and died.  Due to the widespread ignorance of the severe toxicity of fluoride, the dentist simply ignored the child after stating, “he was just given a routine fluoride treatment,” when the child started having convulsions.  Had he just been given a glass of milk or calcium gluconate, he would have most likely recovered.  More recently in England, Colgate Palmolive was forced to pay a large reward for a child poisoned by one of their toothpaste.  There have been several other instances of poisoning nationwide due to faulty fluoridation equipment as well as from school based mouth rinse programs, fluoridated orange juice programs and others.  How many cases have been settled ‘quietly’ one will never know. 

 

That children under six, whose swallowing reflexes are not fully developed, can swallow up to half of the toothpaste put on their brush, is a fact.  That they don’t die immediately is not proof of safety.  The damage may be seen years later in the form of dental fluorosis, ADHD, lowered IQ, depressed immune system, gum disease, heart disease, cancer, increased risk of birth defects in offspring, kidney disease, osteoarthritis, increased risk of developing diabetes, and other evidence of harm.  This is NOT an irrelevant argument since when considering the intake of a prescription drug, all sources of intake should be taken into account.  Thus, with the widespread use of fluoride in various programs, to ignore the other sources of intake is to be irresponsible.  Also irresponsible is to ignore those who may be at increased risk such as those with diabetes, (or at risk of developing it), those with kidney disease and those with high water intakes or high intakes of fluoride from other sources.  This could include a recent English immigrant who is a heavy tea drinker, for example, and does not know his water is artificially fluoridated!  It could also include a child who loves Welch’s grape juice (with 6.8 ppm fluoride)!

 

ACCUMULATION OF FLUORIDE IN SOFT-TISSUES

 

Numerous studies show fluoride to accumulate in soft tissues.  These would include the aorta, thyroid, kidney and others.  Regarding the toxic effects of fluoride on the kidney, Dr. Harold Warner from the Yerkes primate research laboratory, at Emery University in Atlanta, found fluoride to be extremely toxic to the kidney cells of Squirrel monkeys.  Published in Histology Journal in June of 1975, his results were especially shocking because he found that fluoride—at concentrations commonly used in artificially fluoridated water, to result in ‘extreme stress’ on monkey kidney cells.  This finding was also confirmed in personal communication with the author back in 1984.  It is in this personal letter that Dr. Warner stated his belief that fluoride exerts the more stress on the kidneys than on any other organ.

 

Although for many years, bones and teeth have been considered the only areas in which fluoride is stored, this view has never been correct.  Indeed, a wide variety of evidence indicates that fluoride accumulates in the thyroid, kidney and aorta and other organs.  One patient living in fluoridated Grand Rapids, Michigan had an aorta with 8,400 ppm.  This writer would like to get a hold of the aortas of some of heart attack victims, living locally, who recently died at very young ages (32, 40, 42, and 43)!  Are these recently published deaths due, fully or in part to fluoridated water?  No one knows and, certainly few people are looking!  In a naturally ‘high-fluoride’ area in Japan, (6 to 13 ppm in the drinking water), changes in the electrocardiogram and enlargement of the heart in children have been linked to fluoride in the water.  [Okushi, I., Changes of the Heart Muscle Due to Chronic Fluorosis. Part I., Electro-cardiogram and Cardiac x-Rays in Inhabitants of a High Fluoride Zone, as reported in Waldbott, Fluoridation, the Great Dilemma, Coronado Press, @ 1978, p. 158.]

 

FLUORIDE: THE AGING FACTOR!

 

The integrity of collagen is crucial in order to allow human s to ‘age gracefully!’  Unfortunately, numerous studies show that fluoride poisons collagen producing cells.  These would include osteoblasts (bone), chondroblasts (cartilage), fibroblasts (skin, muscles, ligaments, tendons), odontoblasts (dentin of teeth), and, amelioblasts (enamel of teeth).  We know it poisons these specialized cells because we can see the increased urinary production of amino acids unique to the collagen protein within the body.  Such amino acids as hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine are seen in the urine of individuals after the consumption of just a few milligrams per day of fluoride.  Thus, at ‘normal’ intake levels, fluoride is causing the disruption of collagen.  Thus, fluoride has been called by one author as ‘The Aging Factor,’ since it promotes aging of the bones, skin, ligaments, tendons, etc.  The reason for its cause of collagen breakdown is uncertain, however, it may be due to the known disruption of hydrogen bonds by fluoride at low levels of intake. (see number 10 above).  It may also be due to an interference of essential enzymes, necessary for setting up the proper conditions for intact collagen.

 

During the aging process, cells lose their ability to know the difference between cells that SHOULD be mineralized and cells that SHOULD NOT be mineralized.  Studies show fluoride to cause tissues that should be mineralized to lose minerals and cells that should not be mineralized to gain minerals.  Aging ligaments, tendons, skin, and even the aorta, are tissues that, with aging, become increasingly calcified.  That this is ‘normal’ doesn’t make it healthy.  Indeed, with proper lifestyle (including a minimum fluoride exposure and intake), such dangerous calcification of soft tissues can be kept to a minimum.  Proof of these facts can be found in the worldwide literature on fluoride intoxication.  It is in this literature that with fluoride intoxication or excessive intake, larger amounts of imperfect or deformed collagen fibers may be formed.  In addition, the body’s ability to regulate collagen formation and mineralization is hindered.  [Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, the Aging Factor, 1986, Chapter 4, Breaking Down the Body’s Glue.] 

 

Poisoning of the amelioblasts--the cells that create the enamel of teeth, is the reason excess fluoride consumption causes dental fluorosis.  It is a sign that during the critical stage of tooth formation, these important cells have become poisoned.  As mentioned earlier, some 28 percent (or more) of children in fluoridated areas, suffer from this dental disfigurement.  Even if it is ‘mild,’ such mottling is a sign that excess fluoride has been consumed.  To speak of such defects as ‘cosmetic’ is perhaps ‘soothing’ to the parents of a disfigured child, but doesn’t change what has really happened.

 

FLUORIDE AND ALLERGIC REACTIONS

 

Fluoride increases allergic or hypersensitive responses in people.  In 1961, for example, Feltman and Kosel showed that one percent of pregnant woman and children who received one milligram of fluoride daily, the amount which proponents consider optimal, reacted adversely to it.  Ill effects were due to fluoride, not the binder in the tablets.  Eczema, actopic dermatitis, urticaria, epigastric distress, emesis and headache all occurred with the use of fluoride.  They disappeared upon use of placebo tablets and recurred when fluoride tablets, unknown to the patient, were resumed.  One milligram is the approximate amount of fluoride in four glasses of fluoridated water, when fluoridated at the concentration of one part per million (1 ppm).  [Feltman, R. and Kosel, G.: Prenatal and Postnatal Ingestion of Fluorides – Fourteen Years of Investigation – Final Report, Journal of Dental Medicine, Vol. 16, pp. 190-199, Oct., 1961.]

 

A report in the Journal of the Southern Medical Association showed numerous cases of fluoride intoxication and allergy.  (They are two different entities.)  Entitled “Fluoridation, A Clinician’s Experience,” the article is by the internationally distinguished allergist and specialist in environmental diseases, George L. Waldbott, M.D.  In it, he especially reviews the early states of the multi-symptomatic toxic effects of small amounts of fluoride in water, air, food and drugs that he and others have investigated and reported.  The article gives primary attention to reversible illness from artificially fluoridated water and presents highlights of eight of the hundreds of cases he has encountered in his practice since 1954.  Gastrointestinal and neuromuscular features dominate the clinical picture, but they are often accompanied by urological, dermatological, visual and other disorders.  [George Waldbott, M.D., Southern Medical Journal, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 301-306, March, 1980.]  There are numerous mechanisms by which fluoride can exert its effects.  One is by disrupting enzyme function; another is by interfering with the proper functioning of our immune systems.

 

FLUORIDE AND THYROID FUNCTION

 

Fluoride can depress thyroid functioning by several mechanisms.  One is that it simply competes for the uptake of iodine by the thyroid gland.  (Remember, fluorine, chlorine and iodine are all in the same ‘chemical family.’)  The degree to which fluoride depresses thyroid function depends upon total fluoride intake from water and food, ones nutritional status, calcium intake, iodine intake, vitamin C intake and other nutrients.  The worldwide literature is enormous on how fluoride adversely affects thyroid function and to a significant extent.  This could be why, at least in part, there are so many tired people in America and also why, Synthroid thyroid hormone, is such a popular prescription drug in America.  It also should be noted that a depressed thyroid is associated with a lower metabolic rate.  A lower metabolic rate is associated with obesity!

 

GENETIC DAMAGE AND CANCER

 

In 1990, studies performed under the National Toxicology Program show fluoride to be a potent liver carcinogen.  The principal finding was a significant dose response trend in male rats of osteosarcoma (malignant bone cancer). (NTP technical seriers 393)  It should be noted that in an effort to save money, only fifty rats were used in the study.  For an independent (and shocking) analysis of this study by Dr. E. Calabrese, see http://www.cancer2.htm.com.

 

Additional studies indicate that fluoridated water increases the risk of genetic damage and cancer.  These facts should be considered together since many substances that are mutagenic may also be carcinogenic (cancer causing).  Over one hundred studies over the past twenty years indicate fluoride to be a mutagen and carcinogen.  [See for example A.H. Mohamed, et. al., “Cytological Reactions Induced by Sodium Fluoride in Allium Cepa Root-Tip Chromosomes,” Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology, Vol. 8, pp. 241-244, 1966;  Mohamed has published much research on the mutagenicity of fluoride, none of which has been seriously refuted.  Also important is the pioneering work of Herskowitz and Norton with house flies and fluoride.  They found fluoride to be significantly mutagenic.  Irwin Herskowitz & Isabel Norton, “Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors in Two Strains of Drosophila Melanogaster Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride,” Genetics, Vol. 48, pp. 307-310, 1963.]

 

Fluoride has been shown to increase genetic damage of cells.  At about the same time that studies were coming out showing fluoride to substantially increase the risk of a young woman giving birth to a Down’s Syndrome child, a geneticist was doing research on the potential mutagenic effects of fluoride.  (Down’s Syndrome is caused by damage to chromosome number 21.)  Studies show fluoride, at low concentrations to be a potential mutagen in fruit flies, mice, cows, mice and numerous plant species.  In addition, if fluoride increases the risk of birth defects, such as Down’s Syndrome, it would be safe to say that fluoride is also a mutagen for human populations. 

 

Particularly relevant to water fluoridation are the results of in vivo studies on mouse cells by A.H. Mohamed and M. E.Chandler of the Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City.  These workers found highly significant increases in the frequency of dose and time-related chromosomal changes in bone marrow cells and spermatocytes of male adult mice given sodium fluoride in drinking water for periods of three weeks and six weeks at concentrations ranging from 0 to 200 ppm.  Chromosomal aberrations were1.3 to 2 times greater in those mice exposed to just 1.0 to 5.0 ppm NaF (sodium fluoride) in the drinking water than the controls.  (Please note that some public schools, water is fluoridated to 5.0 ppm fluoride!)  These researchers also found “a high correlation” between the amount of fluoride in the body ash and the frequency of chromosomal abnormalities.  It should be noted that these mice were only exposed to fluoride for from three to six weeks!  [Mohamed, A.H. and Chandler, M.E.: Cytological Effects of Sodium Fluoride on Mice, in American Chemical Society Symposium on Fluoride Compounds in the Environment, San Francisco, California, Aug. 29-Sept. 3, 1976.   More recent researcher have confirmed the mutagenicity of fluoride salts.]

 

If fluoride is a mutagen, one might expect to see more evidence of birth defects in fluoridated towns and cities around the country.  This is the case.  In studies done in the four states of South and North Dakota, Illinois and Wisconsin,  in the late fifties, Rapaport showed that as the concentration of fluoride increased in the drinking water, so to did the risk of Down’s syndrome.  In his tabulation of 687 urban cases, he found a statistically significant, two-fold greater prevalence or risk of mongoloid births in communities with 1 ppm or more fluoride (in their drinking water), than in those with little or none in the water.  When his original study was criticized, he took into account the points of disagreement and repeated his findings.  Subsequently, a detailed statistical analysis was undertaken.  It revealed that there was a probability of less than a one in 125,000 that the entire set of correlations from all four states surveyed was due to chance!  In addition, he found mothers giving birth to mongoloid children at younger ages as the concentration of fluoride increased in their water!  The risk of giving birth to a Down’s Syndrome child especially increases, as mother’s pass the age of forty, regardless of lifestyle and diet.  Thus, studies quoted that have not controlled for maternal age, and showing fluorides NOT to increase the risk of D.S. Births, have to be eliminated as scientifically unsound.

 

Erickson and his co-workers from the USPHS National Centers for Disease Control published a study in 1977 claiming ‘no association’ between fluoride content of the drinking water and the risk of giving birth to a Down’s Syndrome child.  [Erickson, J.D., Oakley, G.P., Jr., Flynt, J.W., Jr., and hay, S.: Water Fluoridation and Congenital Malformations: No Association., J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 93: 981-984, 1976.  They corrected an error in one of their tables in a subsequent issue: J.A.D.A., 95: 476, 1977.]  Yet, a reading of their tables confirms the validity of Rapaport’s results!  Amongst woman under 19, the risk for giving birth to a Down’s Syndrome Child was (fluoridated towns v. non-fluoridated towns): 76.6 v. 38.2; for a woman age 20-24, it was 69.2 v. 39.9 and for a woman ages 25-29, it was 68.2 v. 40.9 (per 100,000 live births)!  To claim ‘no effect’ is therefore, not an accurate assessment of the authors own figures!  (This would not be the first time that negative information about fluoridation was ‘buried’ in a study where the conclusions are stated as ‘no harmful effects.’) 

 

Antigo, Wisconsin, one of the original fluoridated cities in the country, now has the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of colon cancer in the world.  It has been artificially fluoridated since 1954.  Since this time, heart deaths have increased from 86.4 per 100,000 below the national average to 176.5 per 100,000 above the national average.  Note that the contents of every water pipe checked had fluoride concentrations in excess of 3,000 ppm fluoride.  [Antigo is ‘colon cancer capital,’ Antigo Daily Journal, No. 172, Wed., April 10, 1985]

 

The pineal gland produces a hormone now thought to act as a ‘body clock’.  This hormone is called melatonin and it is inhibited by fluoride causing early onset of sexual maturation in study animals, namely guinea pigs.  In guinea pigs, fluoride inhibits pineal gland melatonin synthesis in the immature gerbil.  This is associated with an accelerated onset of puberal development in the female gerbil.  The authors stated: “If these results can be extrapolated to humans, high plasma-fluoride levels during early childhood may be a contributory factor in the current decline in the age of puberty.  [J. Luke, Univ. Surrey, Guildford, England, “Effects of fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland in the Mongolian Gerbil”, Fluoride, Vol 31, no. 3, August, 1998]  It should be noted that the mean age of menstruation for girls in fluoridated Newburgh, was five months earlier than the non-fluoridated control city, Kingston, New York. [Caries Research, Vol. 28, p. 204, 1994.  J.A.D.A., March, 1956.]  Low melatonin levels have been linked to both breast and prostate cancer.

FLUORIDE AND BONE HEALTH

 

While for much of the last forty years, it was widely believed that fluoride could be useful in the treatment of osteoporosis, this belief is not supported by the scientific evidence.  There are now hundreds of articles in the worldwide literature indicating not only the LACK of benefit of fluoride to bones but, in fact, an INCREASE in the risk of hip fractures!  [Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 264, pp. 50-502, 1990.]  In many studies, the use of fluoride was found to be associated with too many side effects and no benefits whatsoever.  Indeed, evidence exists that the new bone formed is abnormal, just like the bones in those who have skeletal fluorosis.  [Cass, R.M., et. al., “New Bone Formation in Osteoporosis following treatment with Sodium Fluoride”,  Arch. Int. Med., Vol. 118, pp. 111, 1966.]  In another study, it was found that the increase in the bone mass that occurs after fluoride therapy cannot necessarily be equated with an increase in bone strength.”  Patients experienced many side effects and, in some cases, the therapy had to be discontinued due to dangerous side effects  [“Effect of the Fluoride/Calcium Regimen,” New England J. Med., pp. 446-450, Feb. 25, 1982.]  Besides its effect on increasing hip fractures, fluoride may also be a potent promoter of bone cancer in American males although more studies are urgently needed in this area.  (See NTP technical report 393.)

 

FLUORIDE AND THE COURTS

 

Courts around the country have ruled that fluoridated water is hazardous to human health and this includes admission of its potential carcinogenicity.  In an address given on June 7, 1981, this is an excerpt of what Judge John P. Flaherty had to say about his experience while reviewing a case against fluoridated water a few years earlier:  “Every criticism defendants made of the Burk-Yiamouyiannis study was met and explained by the plaintiffs, and the Court was compellingly convinced of the evidence against fluoridation.”  (The Burk-Yiamouyiannis study was that which showed a five to ten percent greater death rate from cancer, using a ‘time-trend analysis’, covering approximately thirty-five years, in ten of the largest fluoridated and ten of largest unfluoridated cities nationwide.  Proof was also offered in detail as to how the plaintiffs had in fact, controlled for age, race and sex.  Indeed, a brief reading of the article will uncover that these controls were present.)  [John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burk, Fluoridation and Cancer: Age Dependence of Cancer Mortality Related to Artificial Fluoridation, Fluoride, 10, 102-123, 1977.]  Flaherty continued: “Fluoridation of water is extraordinarily deleterious to the human system.  It is utterly immoral.  It must be stopped.”  On May 15, 1979, Judge Flaherty was elected a Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

 

On February 26, 1982, Judge Ronald Niemann, Alton, Illinois ruled for the plaintiffs, the Illinois Pure Water Committee, and ordered that the Alton Water Company cease adding fluoride to public drinking water.  It also ruled that the Department of Public Health of the State of Illinois and the Environmental Protection Agency could not enforce the mandatory fluoridation law.  The Illinois trial lasted forty days and Judge Niemann’s Decree consisted of thirty-seven pages.  He stated:

 

“This record is barren of any credible and reputable, scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of public water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting health.”  “…There is no showing that the State of Illinois has taken a ‘hard look’ at the side effects, as shown by the evidence in this case…”

 

FLUORIDE AND DIABETES

 

Diabetes may be linked to fluoridated water, in some people.  One editor of a science magazine, Frederick Jueneman, was able to reverse his diabetes by simply giving up fluoridated water [Research and Development, editorial, June, 1984.  That fluoride can cause an auto immune response is known from numerous studies on white blood cells.  That Type I Diabetes Mellitus may be linked to an auto-immune response of the pancreas is well known.  That the incidence of diabetes is increasing every year is also well-known.  What is not well-known is the fact that fluoride can contribute to this (and other) auto-immune health challenges (lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, AIDS, etc.), by thoroughly disrupting the ability of the immune system to recognize ‘foreign’ v. not foreign cells!  If the body thinks certain cells—such as the insulin producing ‘beta-cells’ of the pancreas—are ‘foreign,’ (even though they’re not!), the immune system will attack them!  Since fluoride, as previously indicated, can disrupt the structure of numerous proteins in the body, it would not be surprising if it contributes to various auto-immune responses in the body.  On the contrary, it would be extremely unlikely that fluoride did NOT cause auto-immune problems.  This would be especially true in those individuals whose diets are less than optimum and low in essential minerals.

 

FLUORIDE AND HEART DISEASE

 

That fluoride accumulates in large quantities in the aorta, has not been disputed.  Fluoride accumulation in the arteries may contribute to their calcification by attracting calcium.  Still, the mechanism by which fluoride may increase the risk of heart disease is not fully known.  What is known is that there is an ever increasing number of people dying at very young ages from heart disease (like my doctor’s partner, age 43 and a neighbor, just last week, age 40).  Is fluoride a partial cause?  We don’t know at this point because no one is seriously looking into this important question.  Reports of a mildly significant increase in heart disease mortality in fluoridated communities in 1978 has not been substantiated. 

 

 

OVERALL DEATH RATE HIGHER IN FLUORIDATED CITIES

 

When the mortality rate from various causes, namely cancer, kidney disease, liver disease and heart disease are compared, between 32 ‘natural fluoride’ cities and 32 ‘non-fluoride’ cities, significant differences are found.  This was determined by Allergist Dr. George Waldbott who looked at these statistics for the year 1954.  Then he looked at Grand Rapids, Michigan, fluoridated in January, 1945.   After five years of artificial fluoridation, the death rate for heart disease nearly doubled from 585 cases in 1944 to 1059 cases in 1950!  In addition, mortality rates were 25% to 50 % above those of Michigan as a whole.

 

DIGESTIVE DISTURBANCES

 

Digestive disturbances from consuming fluoridated water are more common than commonly realized.  After all, most people are unlikely to attribute minor intestinal problems to fluoridated water.  This is because most people are unaware of its dangers or potential dangers.  The Physician’s Desk Reference lists gastrointestinal complaints as one possible side effect (of many) that can occur with even one-half milligram of fluoride intake.  These effects are fairly rare, however, when they do occur, it is unlikely that fluoride is considered as the cause immediately.  The author has seen children with colic have their pains go away within just a day after stopping their ill-advised fluoridated vitamins.  A Heifetz study published in the Journal of Dentistry stated as follows:  “A not-too-wide margin of safety exists between the optimum daily intake of fluoride … and that which causes signs of advanced chronic fluoride intoxication.”  “The nausea and vomiting that result from low dosages of fluoride are attributed to local irritation of the gastrointestinal tract by the hydrofluosilicic acid thus formed.”  “A cautionary statement against unsupervised use (of toothpaste) by children under six, appears desirable.”  [Heifetz and Horowitz, The amounts of fluoride in current fluoride therapies: safety considerations for children, J. Dent. for Children, July-August, 1984.] (The authors of this study are pro-fluoridation.)]

 

DEPRESSED IMMUNE FUNCTION: A MOST INSIDIOUS DANGER OF FLUORIDE

 

Depressed Immune Function is one of the most pronounced effects of fluoride on the human body, yet, because ‘everyone gets sick,’ and so many people are ‘used’ to getting or being sick, no one will questions fluoride as a partial or contributing factor.  They should.  Fluoride inhibits the immune system at levels found in fluoridated drinking water.  For example, Dr. Gibson at the University of Glasgow found that fluoride at 0.5 ppm decreased the ‘migration rate’ of white blood cells by 74 percent!  Other experimenters have confirmed her results. 

 

Dr. Robert Clark from Boston University Medical Center showed that fluoride stimulated granule formation and increased Oxygen consumption in white blood cells when they were NOT challenged by a foreign agent but inhibited these processes when the white blood cells needed them to fight off foreign agents!  Granules are what are utilized within white blood cells to attack and neutralize foreign invaders like viruses and bacteria.  Oxygen consumption inside the cells increases since this is necessary for the immune response.  Fluoride can ‘confuse’ the process. [Robert A. Clark, “Neutrophil Iodination Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation,” Blood, Vol. 57, pp. 913-921, 1981. 

 

Gabler and co-workers at the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center found that while as little as 0.2 ppm fluoride stimulated superoxide production in resting white blood cells, this same fluoride concentration inhibited superoxide production when the WBC’s were challenged by a foreign agent.  Superoxide is an oxygen molecule with an extra electron.  It is normally a dangerous free radical, however, it becomes useful within a cell when foreign invaders arrive!  In a more recent study, Gabler and co-workers found that at low levels of fluoride, there was a delay in the capacity of WBC’s to respond to challenges from foreign agents and that when a response occurred, it was less vigorous when fluoride was present.  The authors of this latter report remarked as follows:  “Since fluoride inhibits O2- synthesis, the practice of introducing millimolar amounts of fluoride into areas harboring potential pathogens should be questioned.”

 

As if this were not enough, at least twenty other investigators have written on how fluoride depresses the immune system.  For example, Gerald Weissman, from the New York University School of Medicine, showed that the ability of WBC’s to destroy enemy agents was significantly adversely affected by fluoride.  [Gerald Weissman, et al., “Leukocytic Proteases and the Immunologic Release of Lysosomal Enzymes,” Amer. J. of Pathology, Vol, 68, pp. 539-559, 1972.]

 

In the body, fluoride increases the urinary output and the soft tissue levels of a chemical called cAMP.  This is significant because this chemical decreases the migration rate of WBC’s!  Allman and his co-workers found that when they fed rats water containing 1 ppm fluoride, there was a corresponding increase the urinary output and the soft tissue concentrations of cAMP.  In a later study, they looked at fluoride in the water in the presence of aluminum.  This time, the concentration of fluoride needed only to be 20 to 100 parts per billion in order for there to be a significant increase in urinary and soft tissue concentrations of cAMP~!  [D.W. Allman & M. Benac, “Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Tissue 3,5, Cyclic-AMP, in Vivo,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 55 (Supp. B), p. 523, 1976.;  D.W. Allman, et. al., “The Effects of Fluoridated Water on Rat Urine and Tissue cAMP levels,” Archives of Oral Biology, Vol. 27, pp. 107-112, 1982.] 

 

Dr. J. Gabrovsek, a research dentist at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, recognized the significance of increased levels of cAMP and how it could adversely effect the immune system.  He wrote:  “Because of the inhibitory effects of NaF on phagocytosis and leukotaxis, which are basic defense mechanisms, I have doubts about the absolute safety of water fluoridation on a long-term basis.”  [Dr. J. Gabrovsek, “The Role of the Host in Dental Caries Infection,” Hexagon, (Roche), Vol. 3, pp. 17-24, 1980.] 

 

FLUORIDE AND NEUROTOXICITY IN CHILDREN

 

Fluoride may increase the uptake of lead in children.  For example, in a survey of 280,000 Mass. children, Dartmouth researchers found that where silicofluorides were used to fluoridate water, children were over twice as likely to have blood lead levels above the danger level of 10 ug/dL.  (Dartmouth News, Office of Public Affairs, Hanover, NH., Aug. 31, 1999.)  In addition to this Massachusetts data, studies in school children in the state of Georgia have also revealed the same results.  It has been found that behaviors associated with lead neurotoxicity are more frequent in communities using silicofluorides than in comparable localities that do not use these chemicals.  [“Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and enhanced lead uptake, R.D. Masters and M. Coplan, Fluoride, Vol. 31, No 3, Aug, 1998]

 

That fluoride can cause neurological damage is becoming increasingly clear from the world-wide literature.  For example, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix and her coworkers published a landmark study on the neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats back in 1995.  Entitled, “Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats”, it outlined how fluoride could, even at low levels of intake, produce neurotoxicity in rats, and presumably, similar effects may be found in people. 

 

Consumption of fluoridated water is associated with lower intelligence in children.  This was found by Chinese researchers Zhao and Liang working in areas of China with high levels of fluoride in their water .  The fluoride concentration levels, 4.1 ppm, are just 0.1 ppm  above  the levels that the EPA considers ‘Maximum Contaminant Level,’ (namely 4.0 ppm).  They found the average IQ of children in the low fluoride areas to be 105.2 and that of children in the high fluoride areas to be 97.7.  [“Effects of a high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence.” Fluoride, Vol. 29:4, pp. 190-192, 1996.]  (Whether or not this is due to an increased uptake of lead in a child’s developing brain is not known at this point, but it may be a possibility.

 

Rats fed amounts of fluoride similar and also slightly higher to that found in artificially fluoridated drinking water, suffered from impaired central nervous system functioning and poorer memory.  There was more malaise and fatigue and significant alteration of enzyme functioning.  Some researchers have concluded that there IS a mechanism by which fluoride can contribute to so many neurological problems in children.  Thus, links of fluoridated water to decreased intelligence, increased incidence of ADD and ADHD, lower cognitive ability, poorer memory and other related problems, may not be so ‘far-fetched’ after all!  Of course, further studies need to be done on this subject.  Our children deserve nothing less.

 

NEUROTOXICITY OF FLUORIDE AND ALUMINUM

Three very significant studies were done on rats by Dr. Julie Varner in 1998, all of which showed fluoride to be a signficant neurotoxin.  This was especially true in the presence of aluminum.  What Verner found was that when fluoride with just 1 ppm fluoride, (the amounts used for artificially fluoridated water), was used in the presence of aluminum sulfate (frequently used to improve the appearance of drinking water), the results were disastrous!  Aside from brain and kidney damage, there was an eighty percent mortality rate in the animals fed doses of sodium fluoride and aluminum similar to those found in artificially fluoridated water.  The original Varner, et al. study was designed to determine whether aluminum and fluoride (AlF3) in drinking water plays a role in age-related neurological damage similar to Alzheimer’s disease.  Although claims of fluoride increasing the uptake of aluminum have been made before, this was the first scientific study designed to look at this important interaction. 

 

Animals fed the aluminum/fluoride laced water developed sparse hair and abnormal, copper-colored underlying skin which is related to premature aging.  Mostly the researchers related these effects to chronic kidney failure.  Further autopsy results showed serious kidney abnormalities in animals that drank water containing both sodium fluoride and aluminum fluoride.  The Varner team said that “Striking parallels were seen between aluminum-induced alterations” in cerebral blood vessels that are associated with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of pre-senile dementia.  They concluded that the alterations of the blood vessels may be a primary event triggering neuro-degenerative diseases.  [Varner, J.A., et al., Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium fluoride to rats in drinking water: Alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Research, Feb. 16, 784 (1-2): 284-98, 1998.]

 

All three studies by this Varner group got the same results.   This was a ‘red flag’ for the USEPA who convened a group of experts to carefully consider the results of the Varner ‘study.’  While the EPA kept talking about ‘The Varner Study’ there were actually three of them and they all showed extreme neurotoxicity of a combination commonly used in America: that of sodium fluoride and aluminum sulfate!  As usual, they want to do ‘additional studies.’  What is important to note is that, aside from brain and kidney damage, there was an eighty percent (80 %) mortality rate in the animals fed doses of sodium fluoride and aluminum similar to those found in artificially fluoridated water.  While hydrofluosilicic acid was not used in this study (it is used in ninety percent of the cities for fluoridating the water in America), it has similar toxicity to sodium fluoride.  Still, it is not known whether it would react to aluminum sulfate as did NaF.  Surely, there must be some reason why three studies showed high toxicity of this combination.  Would you want to wait for ‘further studies,’ while potentially drinking a similar combination in your public water supply?

 

For an excellent overview of the role that fluoride plays in neurotoxicity, refer to an important paper written by Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, in a 2004 Issue of Fluoride [Vol. 37 (4): 301-314]

 

From this article, the reader should have learned a variety of reasons why fluorides are potentially hazardous to one’s health.  While ones general nutrition can make a significant impact on lessening the proven and potential dangers of fluoride, it would still be best to avoid fluoride in whatever ways possible.  One can use fluoride free toothpaste (although the danger is greater in young children whose swallowing reflexes are not fully developed).  One can avoid commercially raised coffee, food and beverages and choose organically raised as much as possible (to avoid fluoride-containing pesticides).  If one drinks beer, they can limit themselves to drinking imported beer or making themselves a pest with your favorite beer company (“What filtration process do you use?  Is Milwaukee’s water fluoridated?,  etc.)  In addition, avoid all soda!  This is especially important because the excessive acidity of soda (for example, Coca-Cola has a pH of 2.5), increases the retention of fluoride, (see point # 31 above), in addition to all the empty calories one gets from the soda.  It also leads to substantial loss of calcium from the bones, worsening or causing osteoporosis.  Finally, one can avoid fluoridated water as much as possible.  Be careful with water filters, however, most do NOT remove fluoride but may reduce the presence of other minerals that inhibit the absorption of fluoride.  Thus water filters can make the fluoride present more toxic! 

 

One of the most important things to do to counter the negative effects of fluoride is to minimize one’s intake of acid forming foods and, instead, enjoy a diet rich in alkalizing foods, such as fruits and vegetables (mustard greens, parsley and spinach are highly alkalizing), sea vegetables (think sea weeds like wakamé and kelp) and Umbushi plum paste, to give some important examples.  As you study this issue further, you’ll learn which vegetables are the most alkalizing and which are acid forming.  Start with “Alkalize or Die,” “The Acid, Alkaline Diet,” and The pH Miracle” to give three of the best on the subject.  Herman Aihara’s book “Acid & Alkaline” is also good and provides a number of useful charts.) 

 

Organically grown foods offer many benefits.  Besides being much lower in fluoride, such fruits and vegetables will be more alkalizing than their commercially raised counterparts.  Also, naturally and especially organically raised animal products (if eaten), will be less acid forming than their commercially grown counterparts.  In addition, ALL organically grown products—produce and animal alike—will likely be far lower in fluoride than their commercially raised counterparts.  So while you’re reducing the fluoride burden in your body, you’re increasing fluoride excretion!

 

Remember, all protein foods create acid by-products, which under most circumstances, are eliminated from the body.  This is one of the benefits of drinking plenty of water—such waste products are supposed to be eliminated from the body.  But this doesn’t mean we want to stress our elimination systems by overdoing the meat, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, beans and all other protein rich foods!  This is because fluoride is a common ingredient in many pesticides.  So be sure to consume a diet that is high in fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, unrefined nuts, seeds, beans, legumes and filtered unfluoridated water.  Use organically raised products, whenever possible.

 

For more details or references, please contact the author or go to www.fluoridation.com or www.fluoridealert.org.