50 reasons to oppose fluoridation

This is a reproduction of an article that appears on the Food Consumer website. Please visit their website for additional information and links on this subject.


Dr. Paul Connet, Ph.D. of St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY offers 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation as listed below and the statements are slightly edited.


1, Humans don't need fluoride to have good teeth;


2, Fluoridation is unnecessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and they have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the U.S. where a majority of cities are fluoridated;


3, Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt;


4, Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities in Canada and other countries, dental decay has not increased but actually decreased;


5, Dental crises were reported to have occurred in U.S. cities where fluoride has been added to drinking water for over 20 years; Tooth decay is more correlated with income than fluoride levels in water;


6, A decline in tooth decay had been already seen before fluoridation was introduced; Some studies suggested increased levels of fluoride in drinking water was associated with elevated risk of tooth decay;


7, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledges findings by many leading dental researchers that fluoride does not have to be ingested to have a protective effect, which is topical, but not systemic. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, no reason exists to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply;


8, The FDA has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective;


9, Fluoridation does not help reduce dental decay rates. A major survey has found 30 percent of children in fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth while the purpose of fluoridation is to limit the rate below 10 percent;


10, While fluoride is a known risk factor for dental fluorisis, other factors also affect the dental condition;


11, The level of fluoride put into drinking water at 1 ppm is not what nature intended. Fluoride presented in mother's milk is 200 times lower than 1 ppm. No benefits but only risks come from this level of fluoride;


12, Fluoride is a cumulative poison, and only 50 percent of this mineral ingested daily can be excreted through the kidneys;


13, Fluoride actively interferes with hydrogen bonding and inhibits a great number of enzymes;


14, Together with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins leading to further interference with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals;


15, Fluoride is mutagenic and can damage DNA and interfere with enzymes that help DNA repairs;


16, Fluoride can form complexes with other metals or minerals causing a variety of problems;


17, Animal studies show exposure to 1 ppm of fluoride in the form of sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride in drinking water for a year resulted in morphological changes in kidneys and brains of rats, increased uptake of toxic metal aluminum in the brain and the formation of beta-amyloid deposits, which increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease;


18, Aluminum fluoride used to fluoridate water is toxic to the brain; the U.S. government recommended this chemical should be tested for its toxicity;


19, Fluoride accumulates in the brain and alters mental behavior in a manner like a neurotoxin;


20, Five studies in China revealed fluoride exposure was linked lower IQ in children;


21, Fluoride also accumulates in the pineal gland to a very high level and reduces melatonin production and leads to an early onset of puberty;


22, Fluoride was prescribed in Europe to patients with hyperthyroidism. Water fluoridation essentially forces people to use a thyroid-depressing drug; The department of health and human services reported fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated at the range of 1.6 to 6.6 mg per day, which covers the dose range from 2.3 to 4.5 mg per day that decreases the thyroid functions;


23, Some early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, which is caused by fluoride, mimics the symptoms of arthritis, a fact that leads to misdiagnosis of skeletal fluorosis. Because of this, incidence of skeletal fluorosis can be underestimated;


24, High doses of fluoride up to 26 mg per day were tried to treat people with osteoporosis in hopes that their bones can be hardened and fracture rates can be reduced. Exposure to such high levels, in fact, increased the rate of fractures, particularly hip fractures. The level of exposure can be easily reached in people who live in fluoridated areas during their lifetime;


25, Many studies have linked exposure of fluoride with increased risk of fractures, particularly hip fractures, which are serious health problems;


26, The one and only government-sanctioned animal study intended to examine the effect of fluoride on cancer risk showed a dose-dependent increase in risk of bone cancer in male rats. Other cancers in the liver and the mouth were also increased, but the government downplayed the findings;


27, A review of data in a National cancer database found higher rates of bone cancer in young men in fluoridated areas compared to unfluoridated areas. A smaller study revealed the increase in bone cancer in young men living in fluoridated areas was 6 times higher, compared with those living in unfluoridated areas;


28, Animal studies showed high levels of fluoride wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system, specifically damaging sperm and boosting the odds of infertility;


29, Although toxic at high levels, the fluoridation programs are poorly monitored. As a result, the exposure to high toxic mineral varies widely and some people might have been victimized by the practice;


30, No one can really know exactly how much his daily intake of fluoride is. Some people could expose themselves to much higher levels than others even though the average may or may not be too much out of the normal range;


31, Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are forced to drink fluoridated water. If fluoride is indeed beneficial, people can always take it as a dietary supplement;


32, Referenda cause a conflict between individual rights and majority rule. Fluoride, a toxin, should not be given to an individual just because his neighbors agree that he should receive it in drinking water;


33, Some people are more sensitive than others. One 13-year study showed about 1 percent of patients given 1 mg of fluoride per day developed negative reactions;


34, The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry and other researchers reported that certain individuals including elderly, diabetics, and those with poor kidney function may be more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects;


35, Vulnerable are also those who suffer malnutrition such as deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and iodine and protein in their diet. People with malnutrition are likely the poor, who are the targets of new fluoridation programs;


36, Dental decay is more commonly seen in poor communities. That is not because they have no access to fluoride, but because they are poor and don't have access to adequate dental care and don't have dental insurance;


37, Fluoridation has failed to prevent the most serious oral health problem facing young and poor children, that is, baby bottle tooth decay or early childhood caries;


38, Early studies intended to help launch fluoridation programs were criticized for their poor methodology and choice of control communities. Dr. Hubert Arnold from the University of California at Davis was cited as saying the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude."


39, When the U.S. Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, no single trial had been yet completed;


40, After the launching of fluoridation, evidence from studies indicated that fluoride could not help prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, which represents up to 85 percent of the tooth decay in children. This is a fact that has been known to the dental community;


41, People today are exposed to much higher levels of fluoride than the optimal fluoridation level 1 ppm, which is the level viewed as optimal in 1945.


42, Fluoride chemicals used to fluoridate water in the U.S. are not food or pharmaceutical grade. They come from the wet scrubbing systems commonly seen in the superphosphate fertilizer industry. They are contaminated with impurities and only 90 percent of it is sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilic acid.


43, The chemicals used for fluoridation have not been tested for its safety. The tests conducted in animal studies used pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, but not industrial grade fluoride chemicals;


44, Use of fluorisilic acid increased uptake of lead into children's blood;


45, Sodium fluoride is an extremely poisoning substance, a dose of 200 mg of fluoride ion can be enough to kill a young child, and 3 to 5 grams of it may kill an adult. Deaths were reported to result from excess exposure to fluoride;


46, At least 14 Nobel Prize winners had expressed their reservations about fluoridation;


47, Nobel laureate in Medicine and Physiology Dr. Arvid Carlsson was quoted as saying ""I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy" (Carlsson 1978).


48, Pro-fluoridation officials refuse to debate over fluoridation. Dr. Michael Easley, a well known lobbyist for fluoridation in the US was quoted as saying "Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view". Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, was quoted as observing "the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues".


49, Scientist, doctors, and dentists who have spoken against fluoridation have been subjected to censorship and intimidation;


50, The Union representing scientist at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC opposes water fluoridation. "In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all - that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."


For more details about adverse effects of fluoride, readers are encouraged to visit the fluoridealert.org's website.


Please visit The Wellness Academy for more information.