Should Canadian communities continue to fluoridate water?


Water fluoridation has been hailed as one of the top ten great public health achievements of the 20th century by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Yet, in the past five years, dozens of Canadian communities have stopped adding fluoride to the municipal water supply, including Calgary, Waterloo, Windsor and Saint John.

Inspired by online campaigns like Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation, vocal community groups say new science shows fluoride isn’t as effective as previously thought, and that fluoride causes harms.

Health Canada reported in 2010 that around 45% of Canadians lived in a community with fluoridated water. The federal agency hasn’t updated this number since then, according to spokesperson Sean Upton, but one anti-fluoride group claims that in 2015, only around 30% of Canadians are exposed to fluoridated water.

“We’re hearing that it’s poison and people are saying ‘We’re being medicated and we’re not being given a choice,’” says Dennis Radbourne, a councillor in Fairview, Alberta, where the council has scheduled a plebiscite on the issue this fall.

Dick Ito, a professor of community dentistry at the University of Toronto, takes issue with that line of argument. “Fluoride is natural. It’s in all waters,” he explains. “What we’re doing is optimizing the level to a level where it can prevent caries [tooth decay]….we don’t think it’s any different from fortifying salt with iodine or cereals with folate to prevent other diseases.”

Ito is not alone. More than 90 major organizations support adding fluoride to water to reduce the incidence of cavities, including Health Canada, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Association of Public Health Dentistry.

Why is water fluoridated?

Water fluoridation has a long history. In the early 1900s, a young dentist moved to Colorado and was perplexed by the prominent brown stains on many of his patients’ teeth. Patients with the condition almost never had cavities. Though it took decades to discover, high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the water was eventually found to be behind the brown stains, and the cavity-free teeth.

Fluoride is a mineral that binds to the enamel of teeth, thereby strengthening the enamel and preventing bacteria from decaying it. In high concentrations, fluoride can cause noticeable dental fluorosis – the brown staining first reported in Colorado, which, though harmless, may be a cosmetic issue.

In 1945, Brantford, Ontario became the first community in Canada to fluoridate its water. A study that followed cavity rates over the next 11 years found that children in Brantford had 35% fewer cavities when compared to Sarnia, Ontario, which didn’t have fluoridated water. Numerous studies and reviews conducted since then have found that the addition of fluoride to water decreases the prevalence of tooth decay. The most recent review – just published last month by the Cochrane Oral Health Group – concluded that water fluoridation results, on average, in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in these same indicators for permanent teeth. However, the reviewers pointed out that because few high quality studies have been published since 1975, “the applicability of the results to current lifestyles is unclear.”

“If we are able to minimize caries, people can keep their teeth for life,” says Richard Musto, the medical officer of health for the Calgary Zone in Alberta. “For older folks who have lost their teeth, nutrition becomes a real challenge. Dental caries are painful. They’re the number one cause for elective general anesthetic surgery in pediatric hospitals.”

Fluoridation is a highly cost-effective intervention, public health experts argue. According to Radbourne, the biggest cost of fluoridation is the testing of fluoride levels, which amounts to $8,000 a year for his community of Fairview. The cost to individuals and the public health system of filling cavities and extracting teeth are well beyond the cost of fluoridating water. One analysis looking at costs of tooth decay in Quebec found that even if water fluoridation only reduces tooth decay by 1%, it’s still cost-effective –the cost of fluoridating the water is much less than the cost of treating 1% more cavities.

Because low-income children and adults have higher incidences of cavities, water fluoridation is also seen as a way to reduce health disparities. “It benefits everybody who drinks the water, regardless if they have access to dental care or a healthy diet,” explains Musto.

Benefits of fluoridated water may be much smaller today compared to the past

Those who oppose the addition of fluoride in water argue that the impact of fluoride on cavities is not as great as it once was. Access to fluoride-containing toothpaste, free dental care for people in need and the promotion of tooth brushing and flossing in schools have all contributed to improved dental health – thus fluoridated water is no longer required, the argument goes.

The argument is not without merit. The rate of tooth decay has been declining dramatically, both in countries that have high levels of water fluoridation and those that do not.

One way to understand the benefit of fluoride today is to look at what happens in communities that have recently ended water fluoridation programs. The evidence here doesn’t tell us much. The Cochrane review only found one study on fluoride cessation that met its quality standards, and that study didn’t show that the removal of fluoride increased cavities in children. The results of the other studies not included in the Cochrane review vary, with some finding that cavities continue to drop after the removal of fluoride, some finding cavity rates remain the same and others concluding cavity rates go up.

Musto explains that removing fluoride doesn’t lead to overall decreases in oral health in places where other interventions to increase dental health are in place and awareness of dental health measures are high. But, he says, alternatives to water fluoridation – like programs that promote routine brushing with fluoridated toothpaste – “are more expensive” and may not reach the most marginalized groups in a society.

A study examining the effects of the end of fluoridation in Calgary is currently underway but results aren’t expected until later this year.

Are there any harms to fluoridated water?

Just as studies have examined the effectiveness of fluoride to prevent tooth decay, so too have many researchers looked at whether the low levels of fluoride naturally present in or added to drinking water cause any harms. (Health Canada recommends that fluoride be added to water at a concentration of 0.7 parts per million.) Many reviews have concluded that there is no evidence to show that the recommended levels of fluoride pose any harm.

The only proven undesirable side effect of optimally fluoridated water is dental fluorosis, which poses no health threat, only an aesthetic concern. (Exposure to fluoride in toothpaste can also cause fluorosis.) According to Health Canada, rates of moderate or severe dental fluorosis are too low to measure in this country. Mild dental fluorosis is found in about 16% of children. In most cases, this mild fluorosis is not even noticed, says Ito. “It requires someone who is trained to even see it. It’s not an aesthetic concern,” he says.

Those who advocate against fluoride point to one-off studies that show people who live in fluoridated water communities may have an elevated risk of everything from cancer to a lowered IQ. But, says Musto, studies that have found links to potential harms “just aren’t replicated.”

For example, while three human studies have found an “association” between rates of osteosarcoma (a very rare type of bone cancer) and fluoridation exposures, the majority of studies haven’t found a link.

Associations are highly problematic, explains Dr. Victor Kutcher, president of the Ontario Dental Association. Elevated rates of a poor health outcome in a community with fluoridated water doesn’t mean that fluoride is the cause, he says. “Malaria is prevalent in countries where many children don’t wear shoes,” he explains, but that doesn’t mean going bare foot increases one’s risk of malaria.

Robert Dickson, a physician in Calgary opposed to fluoridated water, agrees that “undisputed and undeniable evidence” that fluoridated water causes harm doesn’t exist. He argues, however, that not enough high-quality studies have been conducted on the safety of fluoride, and therefore the mineral shouldn’t be added to water.

Who should decide whether fluoride is added to water?

One of the key arguments made by people who don’t want fluoride in the water is that they should be able to choose, as individuals, if they want to consume fluoride or not.

As Marilyn Hafichuk, a spokesperson for the anti-fluoride group Fluoride Free Lethbridge, explains, “if fluoride is in the water you have no choice but to take it.”

Hardy Limeback, former head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto is another rare voice of dissent within a health care community that overwhelmingly supports water fluoridation. Since the benefit of fluoride is largely from the fluoride touching the teeth (not so much from swallowing it), he explains that if fluoride is removed from water, those who want fluoride can still access it in toothpaste, while those who don’t feel they need fluoride can choose to avoid it.

In a report on the ethics of water fluoridation, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics tackled this question of consent. It concluded that the addition of fluoride to water with the aim of improving public health is ethical so long as the decision is made through “democratic decision-making procedures.”

Indeed, across the country, public consultations on the addition of fluoride to the water continue. Elected councillors listen to the arguments of community members and provincial and regional public health experts. Councillors then vote for or against water fluoridation and may invite residents to vote as well.

But some health experts question whether municipal councillors and members of the public are informed enough to make decisions about fluoride. Kutcher points out that most people aren’t able to recognize the flaws in studies that have found potential problems with fluoride.

Another problem that Kutcher sees with fluoridated water decisions being made at the community level is that those opposed to fluoride are vocal about it, while those who agree with fluoride are not as passionate. “Politicians listen to the squeaky wheel,” he says.

As Radbourne says, when it comes to fluoride in the water, “the silent majority remains silent.” 

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

This article has been closed to comments. 115 comments

  1. Richard Musto

    %featured%Thanks for this article – it covers the issues well. I’d like to point out that measures that are put in place after discontinuation of community water fluoridation are expensive generally because of the requirement of a 1:1 interaction with a health professional such as with fluoride varnish application.%featured%

    • chris price

      I have asked you before on other blogs and I am still waiting for the name of any person that has died from fluoride at .7PPM, because of accumulation??? answer that and I will look at your other question

      • Dan Germouse

        Your question is stupid, for obvious reasons. Can you name a person who has died from the lead which was added to gasoline? If not, does that mean that leaded gasoline was harmless? You have Robert Kehoe’s disgusting “show me the data” mentality. Kehoe was an industry-funded pathologist who promoted water fluoridation and leaded gasoline.

    • chris price

      Same rules apply

  2. Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS

    The chemicals used to fluoridate are NOT natural. They are untested industrial waste byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry contaminated with cancer causing elements that are NOT removed during the dilution process. They are still hazardous even at the dilutions used in fluoridation.

    Cochrane reviews normally look at randomized clinical trials. They had to lower their standards for fluoridation because there wasn’t a single one to review. So they looked at non-randomized, mostly non-blinded, before and after studies at the community level, not at the individual level. This is VERY poor evidence because the studies did not control for the effects of delayed tooth eruption, diet, sugar intake, fluoride intake from other sources, Vitamin D status, dental sealants, oral hygiene, the number of visits to the dentist, education etc., all of which influence dental decay. The Cochrane reviewers are misleading the profession and public by even putting numbers on such suspect evidence. To claim that fluoridation reduces dental decay by 26%, 35% or any percentage, is simply not possible from the best data available. Nowadays teens have at most an average of 2 cavities, whether living in fluoridation communities or outside of them. Some ‘cavities’, unfortunately, were counted as cavities when they simply weren’t cavities (false positives) because teeth with suspect stains or early arrested decay are being filled. Measuring dental decay in nearly all the studies was usually done by a simple visual examination of the teeth and counting Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth (DMFT).

    The Cochrane review was funded by the CDC which is decidedly pro-fluoridation.

    Fluoridation is NOT cost effective. It causes dental fluorosis. About every 8th child has dental fluorosis that is objectionable (even Dr. Ito’s study could not show a difference in fluoridated areas in terms of dental decay but he found fluoridation was associated with a significantly higher incidence of dental fluorosis.) Many kids are traumatized by their smiles permanently scarred by dental fluorosis. Families have to pay enormous funds out of their own pockets to treat it. Because public health declares fluorosis is ‘only cosmetic’ they not only disregard the treatment of fluorosis in their cost analyses but dental insurance companies are only too happy to exclude the treatment of fluorosis from their dental plans.

    The issue of harm to humans by fluoridation may have to be settled in court.
    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06/26/peel_region_liable_for_residents_harmed_by_fluoridated_water_lawyer_says.html

    Clearly the analysis in Quebec was flawed claiming that even if fluoridation reduces dental decay by 1%, it’s cost effective. A 1% increase in dental decay would mean that every 50th teen would have 3 teeth filled instead of 2. That’s $200 (approximately) expense saved for every 100 teens. But every 8th teen will seek treatment for dental fluorosis and find that it varies in cost from $400 for simple treatment of mild fluorosis to $20,000 for porcelain veneers. If all the families affected by fluoridation could afford to have it treated, fluorosis treatment would potentially pay dentists anywhere from $5000 to $250,000 for every 100 teens. I can see why dentists support fluoridation even today, when it does little good.

    Fluoride ingestion damages teeth by ‘poisoning’ the cells that develop them. We see that damage when the teeth show up in the mouths. Fluoride can also damage other tissues; we just can’t see the effects and we have to rely on well done drug trials (so far NOT ONE has been done on fluoridation) to monitor well known side effects of fluoride ingestion (from other studies) to the skeletal system and soft tissues (e.g. endocrine glands like the thyroid) and the brain.

    Dr. Kutcher is right. Most people “aren’t able to recognize the flaws in studies that have found potential problems with fluoride”. I dare say that’s true for studies that are purported to show a benefit.

    There are tens of thousands of studies, books, and reports on fluoride. Dentists who influence policies and medical officers of health can’t be expected to be 100% familiar with the fluoride toxicity literature. However, when they provide ‘facts’ to city councils that are not supported by the scientific evidence, and they claim that no evidence of harm exists, then, in my opinion, they are doing more harm than good.

    • Joe

      Thank you sir. I may quote you on this if that is ok?
      It is telling that the first people to oppose fluoridation were biochemists who had previously used fluoride compounds to poison enzymes. I would trust the word of a biochemist over a politician any day.

      • Dr. Hardy Limeback

        I posted for people to share. Thanks for your interest Joe.
        BTW- I did my PhD in Biochemistry.

        • chris Price

          ” I did my PhD in Biochemistry.”: Wow and then you try and tell the public that fluoride is a recent invention. I quote “The chemicals used to fluoridate are NOT natural. They are untested industrial waste byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry contaminated with cancer causing elements that are NOT removed during the dilution process. They are still hazardous even at the dilutions used in fluoridation.”

          So if that is the case how do you explain away that fluoride is a natural mineral that has been on this earth long before the first fertilizer plant was built in 1843. You cant, but the lies make good scaremongering..
          Fluoride is the same beast no matter what the source
          Also you forget to tell the public that all additives to community drinking water must pass strict international standards as to purity and contaminates, So that blows the lie about cancer.

          There is overwhelming consensus that there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to ANY cancer.
          A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.
          ——International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982
          • The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma
          —— (Moss et al. 1995, Gelberg et al. 1995, Freni and Gaylor 1992, Grandjean et al. 1992, McGuire et al. 1991, Mahoney et al. 1991, Hrudey et al. 1990).
          ——San Francisco Department of Public Health, Current Scientific Evidence: Water Fluoridation is not associated with osteosarcoma. 2005, http://www.sfdph.org/phes/ water/fluoride/Osteosarcoma_fluoride fact_sheet.pdf
          Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.
          ——-Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999. Available at http//www. nhmrc.gov.au/advice/pdfcover/fluocov. htm, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.
          The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.
          ——-McDonagh M S, et al., Systemic review of water fluoridation. BMJ, 2000. 321.
          A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).
          ——Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.
          In 2002 the British Medical Research Council agreed that overall, evidence does not suggest that artificially fluoridated water increase the risk of cancer.
          ——-Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.
          A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.
          ——European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride. The EFSA Journal, 2005. 192: p. 1-65.
          So the numbers dont stack up ,nor do the lies
          After 70 years of uninterrupted use in Grand Rapids there are no people unexpectedly dying from chemical poisoning ,or suffering from mental illness. And a city like that would be the best place to do any tests
          And I bet the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby has gone through everybodys medical history to find any fault That they can shout from the rooftops and say, see we told you so. fluoride is this and causes this at .7 PPM
          But as usual what do we hear ,,,Nothing
          So really all the negative comment is just unproven scaremongering

          It says a lot for there arguments, when not one quality medical or dental institution says fluoride is any danger at .7 PPM

    • Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

      Dr. Limeback,

      Regrettably you are biased against water fluoridation. You make claims about objectionable fluorosis that you’ve seen in your limited population of patients in your clinical practice. You’ve claimed that these patients are overtreated with veneers that cost in the 10’s of thousands of dollars. When I pressed you for your literature showing what you were verbalizing, you did not have a shred. What you did have was a clinical case where a patient of yours would not accept your recommendations for minimal therapy. Instead they went down the street to a classmate of yours who place veneers on the teenaged patient. You were angry about this, and have used this single anecdotal case to make allegations that community water fluoridation costs patients 10’s of thousands of dollars in cosmetic therapy. That just isn’t so.

      You are a good researcher. Sadly, you have embraced the dark side of public health for some unknown reason. I won’t venture a guess. But I would and do expect more from a public health professional who is reasonable and respectful in their approach. You’d never see James Bawden or Gary Rozier spouting off in these comment sections. Yet you readily jump in as if you are the only expert who can set the record straight on CWF.

      I challenge you to stay in the game, and continue with good research like Dr. Steve Levy is doing in Iowa. To stand on the sidelines and criticize is for armchair quarterbacks. You are better than that.

      • Dr. Robert C Dickson

        Dr. Johnson, you are so biased and misinformed that you should not be commenting anywhere on anything. Dr. Limeback knows more in his little finger about fluoridation than you will in this lifetime and next.
        Please desist being an industry shill, do your systemic, biochemical research, and finally admit you are wrong, which is a Herculean task for professionals and public officials.

      • Richard Hudon

        Dear Johny Johnson.

        You say: “You make claims about objectionable fluorosis that you’ve seen in your limited population of patients in your clinical practice.”

        Now that is a case of the black pot calling the kettle black: that is exactly what the dental lobbyists pushing the Fluoride drug actually do all too well, and I expect that is exactly what the Calgary study will yield from their limited population of patients.

        And, “you have embraced the dark side of public health for some unknown reason.”

        That is exactly what the dental professionals who push fluoridation actually do, without any evidence based research to support their claims, and all for their profits and indirectly in support of the industrialist polluters who continue to increase their bottom like by turning their toxic fluoride industrial waste chemical into a profit item as opposed to a loss by having to treat their waste for proper disposal.

        In the words of Rebecca Hamner, U.S. EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water who made that use possible, in the misinformed and mistaken “belief” of unproved tooth decay prevention: “By recovering … fluosilicic acid (aka Hydrofluorosilicic acid) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.”

        Her solution to pollution? Poisoning you and me by dilution in your tap water!

        Fluoride ions put into the water by fluoridation (like its natural counterpart already present in all source waters), is a known general and systemic protoplasmic (cellular) poison, as admitted in
        the Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 23, page 568, April, 1936, titled “Fluorine in relation to bone and tooth development” by Floyd DeEds, Phd.,
        and in
        the Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943, Editorial. “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons”

        The nature of Fluoride ions has not changed since then, only our perception of it from powerful, cunning and ingenious marketing campaigns paid for by fluoride polluting industries and their lobbying partners.

        Fluoridation is the worst public health disaster of the 20th century and we are paying for it now through ever increasing health care budgets: along with all other toxic effects in our foods, beverages and the environment indubitably potentiated by ubiquitous Fluoride ions, our health care budgets will continue to spiral out of control.

        Richard Hudon, President
        Safe Water Ottawa

    • Dr. Robert C Dickson

      Great rebuttal, Hardy, thanks!
      It’s unbelievable that this antiquated, unhelpful, unethical and unsafe practice is still supported by so many poorly informed health care professionals. Unfortunately, the author did not speak with the many dentists in Calgary, and across the country, who won’t even let fluoride through their clinic doors, and are strongly but silently (mostly to protect their livelihood) opposed to fluoridation.
      As a recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine, said, water fluoridation is the biggest scam ever propagated against society.

      drbob

    • chris price

      There are tens of thousands of studies, books, and reports on fluoride. Dentists who influence policies and medical officers of health can’t be expected to be 100% familiar with the fluoride toxicity literature. However, when they provide ‘facts’ to city councils that are not supported by the scientific evidence, and they claim that no evidence of harm exists, then, in my opinion, they are doing more harm than good.

      So if that is the case why do all international and domestic medical and dental institutions support Community Fluoridated Water?? And there is only one activist group that opposes it?

      • Richard Hudon

        Dear Chris Price: “And there is only one activist group that opposes it?”

        You are very, very mistaken.

        There are more 50 activist groups in Canada that oppose water fluoridation and we are more knowledgeable that most medical officers of health on the subject because we have taken the time to do our due diligence; we have done the research.

        Anyone who has taken the time to read the contents of so-called expert studies on fluoridation will quickly come to the same conclusion that I have: the contents of those studies actually support ending fluoridation.

    • chris price

      The chemicals used to fluoridate are NOT natural. They are untested industrial waste byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry contaminated with cancer causing elements that are NOT removed during the dilution process. They are still hazardous even at the dilutions used in fluoridation.

      So if that is the case how do you explain the natural presence of fluoride in air ,ground water the sea and rock. And fluoride has permeated all the earth in 160 years, since the first modern fertilizer plant was built. Boy they must have a heap of waste. What a stupid statement

      All drinking water additives must pass strict international standards for drinking water that cover purity and contaminates.
      There have been many studies about cancer and fluoride and they have found nothing.

      There is overwhelming consensus that there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to ANY cancer.
      A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.
      ——International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982
      • The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma

      • Richard Hudon

        Dear Chris Price:

        “The chemicals used to fluoridate are NOT natural.” – that is correct.
        A statement by Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, 1983, showing incredible naive lack of understanding of what she was herself saying, brings this truth into brutal perspective: “In regard to the use of fluosilicic [aka fluorosilicic – hydrofluorosilicic] acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency [the U.S. EPA] 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 the communities.”
        What kind of pressures were brought to bear on her to make such a ridiculously deceptive and ludicrous statement?

        To turn red ink into black, all you have to do is find some politician gullible enough to believe your propaganda that a protoplasmic poison can prevent tooth decay.

        You say: “there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to ANY cancer.”
        Dr. Dean Burke (former American Cancer Institute Director) regarding Fluoride:
        “In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical.
        When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that has been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.
        Fluoride amounts to public murder on a grand scale.
        It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.”

        You also say: “All drinking water additives must pass strict international standards for drinking water that cover purity and contaminates.”
        There are still, to this day, no Toxicology Studies and no Clinical Trials that prove that the fluoride chemical used for fluoridation is safe to use as a water additive – I checked, as have many others in this battle to end the poisoning of our tap water with toxic fluoride industrial waste used to add Fluoride ions to tap water when in fact, Fluoride ions should be removed as much as humanly and humanely possible.

  3. Joe

    It’s a poison and has no place in the human body, nor in our water.

  4. Donna

    Hydrofluorosilicic acid is a classified bio-accumulative toxin. Nobody in the history of mankind has ever been fluoride deficient. But millions have been over-exposed. Adding it to drinking water serves no purpose other than saving the chemical industries big money from not having to dispose of it in a designated hazardous waste facility – the only legal place they can dump it other than drinking water.

    • chris price

      show me the case history and name of someone who has had overexposure at .7PPM

  5. NoNonsense

    Mr. Ito should know that chemicals used to fluoridate the water are NOT naturally occurring. He tried to convince Windsor council that they should keep fluoridating their water but his very own study was unable to demonstrate any benefit in fluoridated communities. Here is his study:

    ITO, Caledon and Brampton Study, Peel Region (2757 Determinants of Caries in Adjacent Fluoridated and Non-fluoridated Cities) Mar 21, 2007

  6. Christine

    Health Canada’s reply to a 2014 FOI request for ANY gold standard studies, done anywhere, at any time, showing that H2SiF6 – the hazardous waste fluoridation chemical used in >90% of fluoridated communities – is either safe or effective: Health Canada could not provide even one such study.

    On top of that, we know that H2SiF6 also contains small amounts of lead and arsenic, and that there is no safe level of either. It also contains mercury, radionuclides and other toxic elements.

    We also know that forced medication is a violation of basic human rights. I wonder how many of the doctors that favour fluoridation also forcibly medicate their patients…. because they could lose their license for doing that! If it’s not acceptable for an MD to do that to even one patient, how can it be acceptable for politicians to forcibly medicate entire communities??

    Fluoridation also violates various federal and provincial laws. This is why a legal action has commenced in Peel Region, Ontario. The related legal opinion, including an affidavit from renowned fluoride toxicity expert Dr. Kathleen Theissen explaining that artificial water fluoridation has in fact never been proven safe or effective, is available here:

    http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

    I look forward to watching those responsible for the dumping of hazardous waste into my community’s tap water try to defend their actions in a court of law!!

    • chris price

      Remember, if the arguments against fluoride were so good , you would think they would stand up to public scrutiny on their own merit, without legal help. Or threats of. If they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are not.
      And also if the arguments against fluoride were so good,The illnesses and associated medical problems that fluoride is supposed to cause, at .7PPM, would have well and truly been investigated in the 70 years of its use, And what do we find as real evidence that will sway the authorities. Nothing

      • Christine

        Lol, Chris. That would be true IF public hellth departments and government in general weren’t controlled by corporate interests. But they are, so…. decades in, we still don’t even have proper toxicological studies on this chemical.

        Hmmm, do you think that might have something to do with the fact that even without the presence of fluoride, the lead and arsenic and other contaminants would be shown to cause avoidable cases of cancer, neurological problems….?

        Unfortunately, the Canadian “authorities” are people like Dr. Peter “Two Hats” Cooney – with his ties to a private international pro-fluoridation, pro-MERCURY lobby group for dentists – and Dr. Ito, who either ignores his own research or just doesn’t mind increasing the number of children harmed by too much fluoride.

        And then there’s Dr. David Mowat, throwing his own community under the provincial bus with his ‘safe and effective’ mantra (which he also spewed to the whole country in Maclean’s) but still unable to provide the required SCIENCE to back up his claims.

        Aside from the unavoidable problems with forcibly medicating people, public health interventions are supposed to be grounded in solid evidence… not hopes, prayers, assumptions and wishes. That evidence should have been provided BEFORE fluoridation ever got started.

        The onus is on those who want to dump hazardous waste in a community’s tap water to prove that it’s safe BEFORE doing so.

        Fluoridation = forcible medication with an unproven substance. Shame on those who promote it.

        • Chris Price

          “public health interventions are supposed to be grounded in solid evidence… not hopes, prayers, assumptions and wishes. ”
          I would think that 70 years of uninterrupted use without any problems would be enough of a trial to cover all the bases, and please explain to me how your so-called hazardous waste passes all the international regulations for drinking water?

          • Richard Hudon

            Dear Chris.

            “I would think that 70 years of uninterrupted use without any problems”

            Unfortunately, your hope is groundless – no reputable organization has been making any scientific observations or doing any followup or studies before and after the implementation of fluoridation to support any claim of benefits or show any associations between illnesses and fluoridation.

            However, there is much research that shows that the Fluoride ion is a potential and actual health hazard, not forgetting the co-contaminants that come with the industrial toxic chemical used for fluoridation that are also contributing to the harm to the health of all fluoridated water consumers.

            See the “studytracker” from the Fluoride Action Network showing countless studies on the hazards of Fluoride ions to human, animal and environmental health.

        • chris price

          ” IF public hellth departments and government in general weren’t controlled by corporate interests. But they are, so…”

          Ok so you tell me how the anti fluoride /vaccine movement is not controlled by corporate interests?? FAN is part of this
          Natural health coalition is a corporate body that has major interests in promoting woo and suspect “cures’on the general public< This is the same outfit that fought tooth and nail to stop any regulation or quality controls out side there own organization, So all supplements or cures sold in the USA can contain anything.
          These are the type of people who say fluoride is a danger Thats rich

  7. Christine

    How ~interesting~ to see Dr. Dick Ito quoted in this article. Because his own 2007 cross-sectional study of caries and fluorosis amongst seven year old school children in fluoridated Brampton vs non-fluoridated Caledon, commissioned by Peel Region, found no difference in caries prevalence or severity, but more than DOUBLE the dental fluorosis in fluoridated Brampton: 34% vs.16%.

    So Dr. Ito is well aware that even in the non-fluoridated sample, 16% of the children had fluorosis – a visible sign of overexposure to fluoride in the early years of life. What kind of doctor recommends adding more of something that CHILDREN have already been HARMED by???

    It’s time for some of our public hellth “experts” (i.e. Ito, Dr. David Mowat, Dr. Peter “Conflict-of-Interest” Cooney) to RESIGN.

    • Fiona Dobson

      And…. there it is. Please stop using upper case to argue your point.

      • Christine

        Let’s see if I understand you, Fiona.

        You have a problem with upper case font… but you’re fine with ad hominen arguments and the forcible medication of entire communities using an unproven substance?

        And do you have gold standard studies that Health Canada knows nothing about?

        • chris price

          Tel you what Christie I will show you the gold standard studies when you show me the name and case study of someone who has died from dental fluoriosis or fluoride related illness at .7PPM

            • chris price

              The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily “dose” of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.
              The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

              • Marube

                The extensive National Research Council report reviewed many animal and human studies where adverse effects on a variety of tissues and organs have been observed at relatively low levels of exposure to fluoride. Many of the effects were observed at lower water concentrations than 4 ppm, lower doses than 8 mg per day, and lower dosages than 0.114 mg/kg/day. These included increased uptake of aluminum into the brains of rats exposed to fluoride at 1 ppm; lowered IQ in children in Chinese studies at levels of 2.5-4.0 ppm; increased hip fracture rates in the elderly at levels between 1 and 4 ppm and lowered thyroid function at dosages as low as 0.01 mg/kg/day. As water intake is random and intake cannot be controlled, all of these studies become relevant for water fluoridation consumption.

    • chris price

      And what level of fluorosis would that be ,?? Opps we cant go there, is blows the feeble arguments out the window
      Notice we dont put any real data up because we dont have any, anyway that would make us open to the truth and people would see that the fluorosisi scaremongering is all lies

      Dr. Steve Levy is the premier U.S. dental researcher in
      fluoride intake as it relates to fluorosis and bone health.

      Levy’s paper suggests that
      individuals with mild fluorosis or lesser amounts can have an improved “oral
      health related quality of life”.

    • chris price

      The committee did not evaluate the risks or
      benefits of the lower fluoride concentrations (0.7 to
      1.2 mg/L) used in water fluoridation. Therefore, the
      committee’s conclusions regarding the potential for
      adverse effects from fluoride at 2 to 4 mg/L in drinking water do not apply at the lower water fluoride
      levels commonly experienced by most U.S. citizens.

      • Marube

        Other hidden sources of fluoride, should also be considered. Adding more to the tap water is reckless and hazardous to one’s health. But this politically protected practice does benefit those with vested interests in the fluoride industry. The brainwashing propaganda has worked in the past but the truth is finally being exposed.
        There’s no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis—unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

        http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/04/jeff-green-on-fluoride-toxins-part-2.aspx

    • Fiona

      Christine, a request to stop using upper case is hardly an ad hominen. It is merely a request for to stop yelling. Furthermore, your argument that CWF is forced medication is based on the assumption that fluoride is a medication. It is not. It is an ion.

  8. Seabreezes1

    This is a biased article that leads people into voting in favor. Both the 2000 York Review and 2015 Cochrane Report stated that the trials that are cited as proof of safe and effective are highly BIASED, that the dental benefit per cavities is small (1 or 2 fewer cavities per lifetime), the dental harm is significant (and can result in costly cosmetic and remedial dentistry for approx 12% of the population), and there are no whole health safety trials in that body of literature.

    Beyond dental studies, there are numerous studies and reports that verify:

    Fluoride is an enzyme poison and an endocrine disruptor
    Fluoride is a potent adjuvant… causing or worsening autoimmune diseases & allergies
    Fluoride is a proliferative agent… causing or worsening inflammation
    Fluoride accumulates in bones and tissue… causing or worsening arthritis and other ailments
    Fluoride impacts thyroid hormones… resulting in both hypo and hyper disorders
    Fluoride interferes with glucose metabolism… a concern for diabetics
    Fluoride causes dental fluorosis… disproportionately by race and social economic status
    Fluoride is neurotoxic to fetuses, infants and young children… resulting in permanent deficits
    Fluoride is a burden to kidneys… resulting in increased fluoride retention and possible renal damage in those with kidney disease.

    • Fiona Dobson

      Cavities cause worsening of pain and discomfort
      Cavities lead to removal of teeth and poor life outcomes for those who cannot afford decent dental treatment
      Cavities cause loss of teeth, self esteem and in some cases death, as infection in the mouth can get into the brain and the sufferer can die of an infection….disproportionately by race and socio-economic status
      The occurrence of cavities can be greatly reduced by regular dental check-ups and the addition of fluoride to the water supply, in addition to lifestyle factors

      • Seabreezes1

        It is not a choice between having cavities or not having cavities, it is a choice between fluoridating and not fluoridating.

        The best case for fluoridation is that it reduces the lifetime cavities of a person by one or two. However, it increases dental fluorosis which results in more brittle teeth, discolored teeth and cosmetic dentistry significantly. Additionally, there are other adverse whole health effects as I listed above.

        In other words, the risk analysis indicates the choice is perhaps save one or two cavities but risk several crowns, increased allergies, kidney disease, arthritis, etc. Personally, I’d take one more cavity and protect my kidneys and bones.

    • chris Price

      links please???

    • Fiona Dobson

      So you’re saying that the entire population of Sydney has kidney problems after being fluoridated for over 50 years? Is Seabreezes your real name or are you hiding behind an alias like Dan Germouse? Even Christine and Matt give their first names. Are you afraid people might google your real name and find out that you’re an alternative health practitioner? If youre going to make such outrageous claims, maybe you should put some skin in the game by revealing your identity.

  9. Victor Hafichuk

    When a senior scientist declines to approve, at the risk of his reputation and occupation, fluoride for human consumption, you’ve go to realize there’s something very wrong about fluoridation. Genuine, unbiased studies are available to prove the horrendous threat to health of artificial water fluoridation. Furthermore, it is against human rights to medicate anyone without their knowledge or consent. Water fluoridation is a wicked act against the public.

    • Chris price

      Justice Hansen made this argument in his recent judgment on the fluoridation issue [Hansen 2014] South Taranaki court case
      “Providing it does not have consequences for public health, a person has the right to make even the poorest decisions in respect of their own health. But where the state, either directly or through local government, employs public health interventions, the right is not engaged. Were it otherwise, the individuals right to refuse would become the individuals right to decide outcomes for others. It would give any person a right of veto over public health measures, which it is not only the right, but, often the responsibility of local authorities to deliver”

      Justice Hansen [Hansen 2014] has said in the Kapiti court case ruling “fluoride is not mass medication”,

      • Matt

        It is mass medication. As ruled by the The Supreme Court of Canada in 1957.

        Use common logic. What is a medicine? Canada’s Food and Drug Act says:

        a drug includes any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in:

        -the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder, abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof in man or animal
        -restoring, correcting or modifying organic functions in man or animal, or
        -disinfection in premises in which food is manufactured, prepared or kept

        Hydrofluosilicic Acid is being added to our water for preventing tooth decay. Treatment..mitigation and prevention of a disease, disorder and abnormal physical state of our bodies.

        Hydrofluosilicic Acid is being used as a drug. A drug that is not regulated. It is being put into our drinking water. That is mass medication. There are no controls of dose. No one is monitoring us to make sure we aren’t getting too much fluoride. It’s in our water, food, beverages, etc. It is bio-accumulative. How do I make sure I’m not getting too much?

        Putting a substance in our water to treat our bodies is mass medication. Mass medication is wrong and a violation of basic rights.

        Anecdotal but, I’ve drank fluoridated water pretty much my whole life. I have moderate+ dental fluorosis. According to what we are told by health officials, I should have super teeth. But I don’t. When I stopped going to the dentist for 8 years I acquired 9 cavities. Water Fluoridation does not prevent cavities. Proper dental care does.

        • chris price

          Hydrofluosilicic Acid is being used as a drug. A drug that is not regulated. It is being put into our drinking water. That is mass medication. There are no controls of dose. No one is monitoring us to make sure we aren’t getting too much fluoride. It’s in our water, food, beverages, etc. It is bio-accumulative. How do I make sure I’m not getting too much?

          And who monitors you to make sure you are not getting to much food ?? So if you overeat and get fat there is no controls on Dose No one is monitoring us to make sure we dont eat too much, food is Bioaccumulative. How do I make sure I,m not getting too much ??

          This shows how stupid this argument is

      • Linda

        Judges can be wrong and in this case he is. Fluoride is added to the public drinking water we all buy and pay for with the promoted reason being to reduce dental decay. That is mass medication, without concent. Harvard declared fluoride a neurotoxin therefore we must proceed with great caution and dumping it in the public water system to prevent 1 or 2 at best cavities is foolhardy. The US studies show 41% of children show some signs of too much ingested fluoride and for those with mild cases it is a costly and devastating repair. What is it doing to the rest of the body? Nothing good, thyroid problems, kidney, possible cancer causing agent, IQ. More studies to come…it should not be in the public water system, there is absolutely no good proven reasons to do so.

        • chris price

          “In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should formally evaluate dose–response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance”, grandjean

          See just a possibility that is not a positive result, nothing proved

          As usual the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby twist and lie about the published data, so whats new

  10. Aaron

    Fluoride action network makes it abundantly clear and easy to understand that this practice of unsupervised mass medication is absurd. Those who repeat outdated and obsolete mantras do so at the risk of their credibility. While both sides of many health debates claim to have a monopoly on the science and studies etc, to me, Fluoride Action Network’s assertions seem credible enough to employ the precautionary principle: http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/10-facts/ Here is the accompanying pdf: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/10facts.pdf I mean really, ingestion? You realize that saying essentially “it’s safe because we’ve done it for long time” isn’t science? Here’s a case in point from a health disaster relative, mercury amalgam fillings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-K4kh8fcc&index=43&list=PLF2D1B255B470DC31

    • chris price

      show me a quality major Dental or medical institution that does not support Community fluoridated Water? I wont hold my breath

        • chris price

          And why is that??

          In regard to the National Kidney Foundation, they withdrew their endorsement of water fluoridation in response to a threat of extensive legal action against the then current and past members of the NKF Board of Directors and the NKF employees, from an antifluoridationist attorney. As the NKF is a charitable foundation, it prudently decided to not expend their resources on a drawn out legal battle, putting its Directors and employees at risk for extensive legal costs regardless the outcome. Below is the letter sent to the NKF Board of Directors in 2007. I have also cited where this letter may be found.

          In a letter dated September 18, 2007, Attorney Robert Reeves writes to John Davis, and Charles B. Fruit, CEO and Chairman, respectively, of the National Kidney Foundation:

          “Dear Sirs:

          This letter is to make you aware of a window of opportunity for the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) to act on behalf of its constituents in accordance with the organization’s stated mission. Your actions or inaction in response to this letter have the potential to help or harm many patients with kidney disease and responsible individuals, which might include past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are named as defendants in anticipated legal actions now in development.

          I have been asked if I would consider representing kidney patients in actions against your organization as a result of NKF’s misrepresentations concerning fluoride. I have not yet made a decision as to whether I would personally handle kidney cases or refer them to other attorneys. Frankly, I would hope NKF acts forthrightly and responsibly simply out of concern for its constituents’ health. But if you require additional perspective, experience has demonstrated that potentially responsible parties that take action quickly to remedy cases of negligent misrepresentation and who thereby demonstrate good faith can substantially reduce their financial and legal exposure. Even if it is ultimately determined that neither NKF or any past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are liable criminally or for any tort such as negligent misrepresentation this could still be a major public relations disaster for NKF which is best handled now rather than later.

          Thank you for your prompt attention to this important and urgent matter.”

          Sincerely,

          Robert E. Reeves

          http://photos.oregonlive.com/photogallery/2013/08/letter_threatens_kidney_founda.html

      • Richard

        Institutions are biased and need to follow protocol for grants and funding. However, individual experts from institutions have had the fortitude to speak the truth such as:
        Dr. Arvid Carlsson of Sweden, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine.
        http://www.nofluoride.com/PDF/Carlsson_Opposes.pdf
        The following letter from Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of the American Medical Association certainly makes clear that the AMA refuses to say that fluoridation is harmless and that no studies were ever done on fluoride side effects.
        http://www.nofluoride.com/amaletter.cfm
        Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association. “I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs.
        Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a
        long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.”
        Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A .”E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects.” –
        More quotes:http://www.nofluoride.com/quotes.cfm

        • chris price

          Its getting pretty sad when you have to go back to 1935 to get some sort of evidence

          Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd who is noted to be a Past President of the American Medical Association (AMA). What is not disclosed is the
          source of the quote or that Dr. Heyd was President of the AMA in 1936 – almost ten years before water fluoridation trials began. His decades-old quote certainly does not represent the current AMA position of support for water fluoridation and is characteristic of antifluoridationists’ use of items that are out of date.”

          http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf

          • Richard hudon

            Your observation does not change the fact that Dr Heyd was right and the facts in support of his statement remain true and well supported in current documented scientific research.

            Attacking the source is a common refuge of those who have little to offer to the discussion, a deplorable, disgraceful and insidious way of deflecting the truth about a fraud that needs to stop

  11. James Rawles

    Ladies and Gentlemen let’s be clear about how we talk about “Fluoride”. There is naturally occurring fluoride which is safe in very low doses. What is used in water fluoridation is HFSA: Hydrofluorosilicic acid or artificial fluoride – a completely different animal.
    Perhaps the best book written on the subject is Christopher Bryson’s “The Fluoride Deception”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1606&v=Ly_QP4rGczo The Fluoride Deception: an interview with Christopher Bryson

    Beyond this – there is no shortage of supporting information:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUsUujzNjEo ( 007 Poisoned Horses )

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulrl8mYvwJM ; Beyond Apathy: Zen Gardner, Max Igan and Sinead Flanery discuss water fluoridation (brand new)

    http://wakeup-world.com/2015/06/27/the-fluoride-deception-continues/

    http://naturalsociety.com/new-evidence-links-fluoride-to-increasing-cases-of-adhd/

    http://wakeup-world.com/2014/11/24/fluoride-linked-to-coronary-heart-disease/

    http://wakeup-world.com/2014/10/06/fluoridated-water-can-calcify-arteries-study-finds/

    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/04/02/fluoride-the-deadly-elixir-in-our-water-supplies/

    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/04/16/top-scientist-fluoride-already-shown-to-cause-10000-cancer-deaths/

    http://wakeup-world.com/2014/02/05/nine-shocking-dangers-of-fluoride-exposure/

    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/09/10/a-fluoride-free-pineal-gland-is-more-important-than-ever/

    http://wakeup-world.com/2014/04/12/15-facts-most-people-dont-know-about-fluoride/

    http://wakeup-world.com/2014/02/28/mainstream-media-finally-starts-discussing-exposure-to-fluoride-and-other-toxins/

    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/10/06/harvard-university-insists-fluoride-only-lowers-iq-levels-outside-the-usa/
    Less than 4 % of the world continues with the insane practice of water fluoridation. Imagine the lawsuits when people finally wake up…

    • chris price

      Christopher Bryson is a reporter whose book, The Fluoride Deception, purports to link water fluoridation to the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos. In an interview aired on Democracy
      Now, Bryson stated, “The post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public
      health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride including the government’s nuclear weapons program.” The studies Bryson refers to are of
      poor quality and don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. He refers to fluoride as “rat poison.”

    • chris price

      I want to share with you comments from a very balanced review of the book referenced by Peter Thomas titled, “The Fluoride Deception”.
      “.. Unfortunately, his desire to make the book more exciting leads him into
      the all-too-familiar trap of tarring with the same brush anything associated with, or
      even sounding like, fluoride or fluoridation. This is especially ironic after he starts the book with “notes on terminology”, saying “fluorine and fluoride should not be confused”. However, in the next section he tells us “the same potent chemical that is used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, to prepare sarin nerve gas… is what we give to our children”. No doubt we can expect a series of books on chlorine (“the same potent chemical used in insecticides is what we put on our children’s food”) and oxygen (“the same potent chemical used in the strongest acids is what we allow our children to breathe”). No chemist would dispute the extreme hazards of many fluorine chemicals, but to group all fluorine chemicals together as ‘bad’ is wrong. The book is peppered with similar absurdities, which will be annoying to those who know their chemistry but dangerously misleading to those who don’t. ”
      James Clark is at the Clean Technology Centre,
      Department of Chemistry, University of York,
      YorkYOl05DD,UK.
      NATURE | VOL 4 34 \ 17 MARCH 2005 [ http://www.nature.com/nature
      PS: You will NOT find this review in Peter’s Fluoride Action Network website

  12. Sara S

    The Cochrane Report says the “data suggest,” which sounds inconclusive. Also, the Reports conclusion was that there was “very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.”

    From the Cochrane Report:

    “Key results

    Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. Although these results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in children’s baby and permanent teeth, the applicability of the results to current lifestyles is unclear because the majority of the studies were conducted before fluoride toothpastes and the other preventative meaures were widely used in many communities around the world.

    There was insufficient information available to find out whether the introduction of a water fluoridation programme changed existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.

    There was insufficient information available to understand the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on tooth decay.

    No studies met the review’s inclusion criteria that investigated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing tooth decay in adults, rather than children.

    The researchers calculated that, in areas with a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm in the water, approximately 12% of the people evaluated had fluorosis that could cause concern about their appearance.”

    “Authors’ conclusions:

    There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.

    The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population’s oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.

    There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.

    There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation.”

  13. Amy

    From my article: Plot To Mandate Artificial Fluoridation

    As a thyroid patient, I have been following the fluoride drama since my diagnosis, a simple diagnosis that took years (thanks to the incredible dysfunction in our medical community). Refer to my previous article “Diagnosing Hypothyroidism: Is Our Doctors Learning?” (Bushisms intended) for more on that saga.

    People want cleaner, safer drinking water. A number of cities and municipalities in Ontario have voted against fluoridation. In a response to this, MPP Bob Delaney, in his infinite wisdom, is trying to take away our democratic freedom to vote against fluoridation, by changing our Safe Water Drinking Act and making artificial fluoridation mandatory here in Ontario.

    One of the problems with fluoride, besides being linked to bone cancer, causing bone and dental fluorosis and being a neurotoxin, etc., is that it’s an endocrine disruptor (anti-thyroid). This “trailblazing” information predates the invention of the light bulb.

    Fluoride mimics TSH, damages thyroid enzymes and displaces iodine in the thyroid. The reason why our table salt has added iodine is because we live on a “goiter belt“. Long story short: the foods grown in our soil are deficient in iodine because our soil is deficient. Iodine is an important nutrient for thyroid health.

    Fluoride, on the other hand, is not a nutrient (despite often being peddled as such) and actually displaces iodine. From a leading thyroid specialist in the UK:
    “To condemn the entire population, already having marginal levels of iodine, to inevitable progressive failure of their thyroid system by fluoridating the water, borders on criminal lunacy.” – Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRCS

    Not surprisingly, 98% of Europe (bordering on over 99% once it is banned in Ireland) does not fluoridate their water. Even here in Canada, only 32% or so of our population is fluoridated.

    One MPP who supports this bill, was rambling on about how many people in Ontario “can not afford toothpaste“. If a $1 tube of toothpaste is too expensive for Ontarians, what is the likelihood that all Ontarians with medical issues (diabetes, kidney disease, hypothyroidism, overweight, etc.), pregnant women, families with babies, toddlers and/or young boys (between the ages of 5 to 10) can afford the hundreds of dollars per year it costs to filter out the fluoride, which is deliberately added to the water? Filtering out the fluoride or buying bottled water is expensive. An inexpensive solution, as suggested by one fluoride peddler on the internet is for poor people to “collect rain water”. You couldn`t make this stuff up.

    One of the ironies, is that hypothyroidism, which is linked to fluoride, causes an increase in dental problems (cavities and gum disease). A recent study on this is “Oral manifestations of thyroid disorders and its management“.

    Water fluoridation is unproven, unsafe, unethical, unnatural, and unlawful. A good source of scientific and professional information on this topic is The Canadians Opposed To Fluoridation website.

    The political petition that Bob presented had a tumble-weedy 10 or so signatures. Nonetheless, it’s important for Ontarians to make their voice heard on this issue by:
    Contacting your local Member of Parliament with your concerns, and staying current with all the fluoride drama by joining your local Fluoride Free Group

    • chris price

      The available medical and scientific evidence suggests an absence of an association between water fluoridation and thyroid disorders.

      Many major reviews of the relevant scientific literature around the world support this conclusion. Of particular importance are:

      an exhaustive review conducted in 1976 by an expert scientific committee of the Royal College of Physicians of England;
      a systematic review in 2000 by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York; and,
      a 2002 review by an international group of experts for the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), under the joint sponsorship of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

      None has found any credible evidence of an association between water fluoridation and any disorder of the thyroid.

      From a recent issue of the newsletter of the New Zealand National Fluoride Information Service:
      “Countries with widespread water fluoridation programmes include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Countries with limited water fluoridation programmes include Vietnam, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and South Korea.
      Several countries are unable to introduce water fluoridation programmes due to technical, financial or sociocultural reasons. As an alternative, both salt and milk have been found to be reliable and convenient vehicles for increasing fluoride intake to an optimal level for hard to reach and low socio-economic communities. Studies have found them to be as effective as community water fluoridation schemes.
      Some European, Latin American, and Caribbean countries, including France, Switzerland, Germany, Costa rica, Colombia and Jamaica currently use fluoridated salt schemes. Mexico and most Latin American and Caribbean countries (apart from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and French Guyana) have or have had salt fluoridation programmes.
      A smaller number of countries currently have fluoridated milk programmes, including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Peru, Russia, Thailand and the United Kingdom
      Some country regions have optimal amounts of naturally occurring fluoride which provides good protection for oral health. examples of countries supplied with naturally fluoridated water at or around the optimum level needed to prevent dental decay include the United Kingdom (estimated 329,000 people), United States of America (estimated 10,078,000 people) Canada (estimated 300,000 people) and Australia (estimated 144,000 people).
      It is estimated that 39.5 million people around the world have access to naturally fluoridated water at the optimal level although variations from one community to another over time make it difficult to calculate an accurate total.”

      published in the Journal of Epidemiological & Community Health, links fluoridated water to increased rates of hypothyroidism, which occurs when the thyroid gland is under active, causing weight gain, hair loss, fatigue and depression, among other symptoms.

      The study authors question the safety of water fluoridation as a public health measure.

      “It’s simplistic and it’s extremely overreaching in its conclusions,” said Mike Morgan, chair of population oral health at the University of Melbourne.

      “To do a study like this and say there’s an association without taking into account other factors, and then say, we should reduce the levels of fluoride, well it beggars belief that they should be able to say that in a reputable publication,” he added.

      The study looked at 2012 levels of fluoride in drinking water in the United Kingdom and the national prevalence of underactive thyroid diagnosed by family doctors across the country. They then compared an area that had fluoridated water supply with another that did not and found an association between rates of hypothyroidism and fluoridated water.

      “The main problem with this particular study is that it’s not only observational, it’s ecological,” said John Attia, professor of medicine and clinical epidemiology at the University of Newcastle. “That means you’re making correlations between variables at a geographic level, not an individual level, so the link between cause and effect is very distal.

  14. Peter Van Caulart, VP COF-COF

    I’d clarify that COF-COF is the acronym for Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation – Canadiennes Oppose a la Fluoration, not canadians opposed to fluoride as reported. The process of adding man made silicofluoride compounds into treated drinking water is what’s opposed.

    COF-COF.ca is a fully referenced online resource that archives Canadian related fluoridation news, data and science.

    Canada is now less than 30% fluoridated, down from the reported statscan high of 45.1% in 2004. That’s a 33% reduction of the rate over the past 11 years! No new fluoridation scheme has started in Canada since the mid 1990’s.

  15. Carol Wells, Registered Dental Hygienist

    The CDC’s concession, in 1999 and 2001, that the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC.

    http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/…/06n-0352-emc0199-04.pdf
    QUOTE 1:
    ” The “professional” advice the ADA gave to dentists on fluoridation in a White Paper they issued in 1979:
    “Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports of laboratory and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants in the promotion program and that nonparticipation is overt neglect of professional responsibility.”
    Dr. J. William Hirzy (2000) Senior Chemist at the U.S. EPA Headquarters states:
    “If this stuff (hydrofluorosilicic acid) gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing.”

    US Environmental Protection Agency classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as “class one hazardous waste”.

    Hydrofluorosilicic acid is a NEUROTOXIN
    HOW MUCH PROOF DO WE NEED BEFORE WE REMOVE HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID FROM OUR DRINKING WATER?

    • chris price

      Newbrun, E. (2004). Systemic Benefits of Fluoride and Fluoridation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 64(s1), 35–39.,
      Singh, K. A., & Spencer, A. J. (2004). Relative effects of pre- and post-eruption water fluoride on caries experience by surface type of permanent first molars. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 32(6), 435–46.
      Singh, K. A., Spencer, A. J., & Brennan, D. S. (2007). Effects of water fluoride exposure at crown completion and maturation on caries of permanent first molars. Caries Research, 41(1), 34–42.
      The DMFT ratio for the 11 year old children, who had received fluoridated water in the first 4 years during tooth development, is much lower than 1 (the result expect of fluoridated water had no effect). The difference is statsically significant for 11 year olds, but not the 8 year olds. The data shows a clear beneficial effect of fluoride ingested during tooth development.
      *Cho, H.-J., Jin, B.-H., Park, D.-Y., Jung, S.-H., Lee, H.-S., Paik, D.-I., & Bae, K.-H. (2014). Systemic effect of water fluoridation on dental caries prevalence. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology.

      Jay Kumar’s 2009 paper which showed Fluorosis prevents decay quantified the systemic benefit from fluorosis: “To produce the same effect, one would have to seal, and maintain sealants on, four to 15 permanent first molars, a process that would cost a great deal more.”

      “The cariostatic effects of fluoride are, in part, related to the sustained presence of low concentrations of ionic fluoride in the oral environment,derived from foods and beverages, drinking water and fluoride-containing dental products such as toothpaste. Prolonged and slightly elevated low concentrations of fluoride in the saliva and plaque fluid decrease the rate of enamel demineralization and enhance the rate of remineralization. For example, fluoride at 0,04 ppm in saliva can enhance remineralization.” [my emphasis]
      **Featherston, JDB (2000). JADA, 131 887-899. “The sciuence and practice of caries prevention.”

      the CDC report Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States:
      “The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low — approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas. This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity.
      “However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride  dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100-to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1–2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization.”

  16. Jake

    Just…leave it out. To leave it out would to be better safe than sorry. To leave it in would likely be vice versa.

    • Fiona Dobson

      Hi Jake,
      Why not just leave out vaccines, air travel( because we all about chemtrails!) and GMO’s (because we don’t want those pesky 3rd world countries having access to golden rice and becoming properly nourished or anything). I think we should just all live in small urban villages and eat locally grown organic food. This would be the best way to interpret your version of the precautionary principal. I say, if in doubt give it a clout.

  17. Grace Joubarne

    I don’t care if the stuff turns my teeth to solid gold…I have a constitutional right to not be forced by fanatics to put it into my body.

  18. Marube

    As a Registered Nutritional Consultant Practitioner I can tell you fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Health Canada has finally conceded that fluoride is NOT an essential nutrient. There is no physiological requirement for fluoride of any kind. Just like arsenic, which is carcinogenic and also naturally occurring, fluoride should be avoided from entering the body, exposing tissues and glands from the negative cumulative effects. The industrial grade fluoride added to the drinking water is hydrofluorosilicic (HFSA) and is contaminated with other carcinogens such as arsenic. Why do you think thousands of independent health professionals, EPA scientists, as well as our own family MD are warning us NOT to drink water that has been artificially fluoridated. If fluoride has any benefit, then you can get inexpensive pharmaceutical grade fluoridated toothpaste. But heed the warning on the label “DO NOT SWALLOW”!

    • chris price

      Fluoridation levels of fluoride (0.7 ppm) are not classified as a drug, but as a nutrient, just like other nutrient minerals in water, e.g. iron and calcium.

      From the Linus Pauling Institute which specializes in nutrition research:

      “Although its role in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay) is well established, fluoride is not generally considered an essential mineral element because humans do not require it for growth or to sustain life. However, if one considers the prevention of chronic disease (dental caries) an important criterion in determining essentiality, then fluoride might well be considered an essential trace element.”

      http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/fluoride/

      Note that FSA is more precisely termed a co-product with the manufacture of fertilizer — both being made from earth minerals.

      • Brian D McLean, DDS

        Poor Dr. Pauling, originator of the term “orthomolecular medicine,” is no doubt spinning in his grave.

      • Marube

        Fluoride (HFSA) added to the drinking water to ostensibly prevent dental caries is a drug. A nutrient is something the body has a physiological demand for. As the FDA has long recognized, fluoride is not necessary to human health or development. When used to prevent disease, therefore, the FDA considers fluoride to be a drug.

        “As part of efforts to reduce hazardous fluoride ingestion, the practice of artificial water fluoridation should be reconsidered globally, while industrial safety measures need to be tightened in order to reduce unethical discharge of fluoride compounds into the environment. Public health approaches for global dental caries reduction that do not involve systemic ingestion of fluoride are urgently needed.”
        Review Article
        Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
        http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/abs/

  19. Johnny Johnson

    Dr. Ito has appropriately described the fluoride ion. God made one. Not 2 or 3 different ones. Any student in chemistry 101 knows this. To claim that where the ion comes from makes it different from another source is a blatant and purposeful deception. Shame on those who perpetuate this charade.

    Thank you Dr. Ito for standing up for the dental public health of your residents. Perhaps Dr. Limeback will turn his interests back to science, and his signature on the 2006 NRC report, as signs that everyone may not agree with the studies, but the overwhelming body of evidence is crystal clear.

    Community water fluoridation (CWF) is:
    1. Safe for everyone to drink-no adverse health effects have EVER been shown from fluoride levels in fluoridated water
    2. Effective in reducing the severity and the number of cavities by simply drinking the water. (If x-rays were used in evaluating this decline, the difference would be much higher than 25% as I’m certain that Dr. Limeback would agree).
    3. CWF saves people the pain and suffering of preventable dental cavities by simply drinking the water. Cutting down cavities by a minimum of 25% over a person’s lifetime by drinking fluoridated water is huge. CWF epitomizes the old adage of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
    Pediatric Dentist
    Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

    • Christin

      I have a mouth full of fillings due to dental cavities that refutes your point. I had a normal childhood and didn’t have a diet filled with sugar.

      In addition, my mother has taken exceptional care of her teeth flossing every day, brushing 3x/day and regular dental visits. In her 50s, her teeth became brittle and she has broken several and required crowns and expensive dental work.

    • Matt

      The difference is Hydrofluosilicic Acid (NOT NATURAL) is being put in our water.. not just a fluoride ion. Either is wrong as it’s Mass Medication.

      You claim a 25% reduction. Using a percentage without a reference point is what is a purposeful deception.

      When Dr Clooney was asked this questioned the 25% reduction equated to less than half a cavity per person.

      http://cof-cof.ca/2012/01/does-water-fluoridation-really-save-dental-treatment-dollars/

      • Johnny Johnson

        Matt,

        1. Everything on this earth is natural. Unless it is a manmade isotope, which the mineral fluoride is not.

        2. What Dr. Limeback and other researchers look at with cavities that you see in the mouth when doing studies is hugely flawed. Why you ask? I’m glad that you did.

        As a clinical dentist, we look at x-rays when diagnosing all of the early and established cavities in-between the teeth. You can check with Dr. Limeback on this one if you’d like.

        Researchers are looking at cavities that are VISIBLE to the naked eye. The reductions that are seen with community water fluoridation (CWF) are grossly UNDERestimated. So is the EXTENT of those cavities.

        As a clinical pediatric dentist of 30 years, I have seen beginning cavities on x-rays that never progressed to cavities that needed to be filled, let alone were visible by the naked eye, in my practice. This is the beauty of CWF. It decreases VISIBLE cavities in studies that DO NOT use x-rays by 25%. It decreases cavities NOT VISIBLE with the naked eye to a much greater degree.

        The choices of those opposed to CWF to pick up on the fraction of a surface, or number of cavities that CWF saves over a lifetime, are either naive due to their non-dental background, or grossly exaggerating these statistics to drive home their points.

        Dr. Limeback knows full well that the extent and severity of cavities that are reduced by CWF. He practiced accepted standards for dental care in his practice, I’m assuming. He’s a good man. If he would tell you that people with CWF and those without had no differences in the early (incipient) cavities visible on x-rays, I would ask him to pull 100 consecutive charts and let us both sit down and evaluate them. That’s where the rubber hits the road folks. There’s a huge difference, and a huge difference in progression of those cavities in CWF vs non-CWF areas.

  20. Arthur Retnakaran (Retired Scientist)

    Fluoride is unnatural and studies in New Zealand have shown that it does more harm than good especially in people who have kidney problems. Besides it works only in kids who can get fluoride treatment. You don’t have to buy iodized salts or folate added cereals unlike water which is fluoridated. Many water purification systems state that it removes fluoride from the water. Fluoride is one element that is not utilized by any enzyme system in the body and is used as an inhibitor in many studies. The people who claim the benefits have unfortunately have not done enough literature search. It is being done in the time honoured way of “Truth by affirmation”.

    • chris price

      What studies would these be?? I live in N.Z.

    • Fiona Dobson

      Vaccination/seatbelts/public transport and electric guitars are unnatural and there are no published peer reviewed studies in New Zealand that show show any harm whatsoever. ‘Truth by affirmation’? My personal affirmation is ‘Find the truth by accepting the best available science’. What was your field of science?

  21. Christin

    It is not right to force everyone to ingest fluoride! Those who wish to continue taking it can take fluoride pills.

    Also, the toxic stew they call fluoride that they put into the water is not suitable pharmaceutical grade and contains other toxins.

    “Hydrofluorosilicic Acid and Sodium Silicofluoride are collectively known as the Silicofluorides and are the chemicals used most in other Australian states fluoridation schemes. The two Silicofluorides chemicals used, are waste products of Phosphate fertilizer manufacture. They are industrial grade, not pharmaceutical grade products and can contain small residues of toxic heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury or lead.

    The two Silicofluoride compounds used DO NOT EVEN OCCUR IN NATURE, yet fluoridation promoters call fluoride “NATURAL”. No toxicology studies have ever been performed on the Silicofluoride used in water fluoridation schemes. The only toxicology studies ever done, have been done on Pharmaceutical grade Sodium Fluoride as is used in toothpaste.”

    • chris price

      Hydrofluoric Acid dissolved in water:
      HF + H2O = H+ & F- & H2O

      HFSA dissolved in water
      HFSA + H2O = H2O & silica & F-

      Here is what the CDC says about fluoride ions all being the same:

      Fluoride Additives Are Not Different From Natural Fluoride

      Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as HFSA or sodium fluoride. Two recent scientific studies listed below demonstrate that the same fluoride ion is present in naturally occurring fluoride or fluoride drinking water additives and that no intermediates or other products were observed at pH levels as low as 3.5. In addition, fluoride metabolism is not affected differently by the chemical compounds nor are they affected by whether the fluoride is present naturally or artificially.

      The ionic speciation study conducted in 2006 mentioned previously (Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Re-examination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by fluoride NMR and pH measurement. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:8:2572)
      The pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride was studied by a 2008 study (G.M. Whitford, F.C. Sampaio, C.S. Pinto, A.G. Maria, V.E.S. Cardoso, M.A.R. Buzalaf, Pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride: Lack of effect of chemical compound, Archives of Oral Biology, 53 (2008) 1037–1041)

    • Fiona Dobson

      Look for the upper case……the trail always leads to an anti-fluoride person. Yelling wont get your point across, it just makes you look really desperate.

  22. Fiona Dobson

    The Fluoride Action Network are intent on pursuing their agenda of irrational anti fluoride propaganda to the detriment of those who are in need of basic dental care.

  23. Gerry

    THIS IS NOT a valid survey as a person CAN vote multiple times

    this can be a stacked deck

  24. Marube

    The voting numbers are fixed as some individual computers can cast endless votes.

    • Wendy Glauser

      We have deleted the poll for this problem. All polls from now on will only allow individual IP addresses to cast one vote.

  25. Brian D. McLean, DDS

    re: “More than 90 major organizations support adding fluoride to water to reduce the incidence of cavities, including Health Canada, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Association of Public Health Dentistry.”

    Translation: “More than 90 professional organizations of foxes, collectively in charge of hen houses across the country report that chickens are all thriving.”

    How dare I be so arrogantly dismissive of these prestigious organizations?

    “A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth” – Einstein.

    Einstein cautions against faith in authority in issues where science is involved. What should be used instead? Evidence, obviously.

    Anyone not an expert in the fluoridation field, and I include myself (a dentist) and almost all other dentists in the NON-expert category, has to rely on the interpretation of evidence by the experts. So we come full circle to a faith in authority. What a dilemma!

    But Einstein cautioned against a *foolish* faith in authority. What could he have meant by that?

    He constantly argued for scientific integrity. Of his own career he said. “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    Einstein gives us a clue about which authorities are likely “foolish”. He knew that new knowledge doesn’t come from looking for evidence which supports what we think we already know but from *carefully* examining evidence that does the opposite.

    So what experts in the field do the opposite? Hardy Limeback is one. There are many others. According to Einstein we must listen especially carefully to such people. But we mustn’t simply *believe* them because of their departure from the mainstream. That too would be foolish. It’s the quality of the evidence that counts.

    Alas, we laypeople aren’t qualified to evaluate that. But anyone is qualified to evaluate the scientific integrity of how the debate is conducted.

    Just as sports fans can enthusiastically criticize the performance of elite athletes, so can the layperson criticize the integrity of scientific debate.

    Now, as laypersons interested in this issue, we must weigh the arguments (as opposed to the evidence itself) provided by these opposing experts.

    When we do that, the dissidents would win by default (if we allowed that) because the mainstream pretty much refuses to participate. The mainstream quotes its own authority rather than examine evidence. When its evidence is challenged it ignores the challenge or quotes its own authority. Sometimes it has the effrontery to disparage the dissidents for the fact of being dissident.

    If we are to take “the more than 90 major organizations [which] support adding fluoride to water” seriously, then surely it must be for more than their prestige. Surely it must be because of their demonstrated and continuing dedication to scientific integrity.

    I cant find it. It is NOT from want of trying.

    So the debate becomes, on the one side. “Trust us. We speak the truth” against the relentless presentation of evidence from well-credentialed experts which belies the dogma supported by the “prestigious 90.”

    If I insist on clinging to my world-view that all is well with society and things are as they ought to be, then, I suppose I would have stayed in my comfort zone basking in my belief that the experts know what they are doing.

    On the other hand, if I realize the my belief in mainstream experts is a function their scientific integrity, an integrity demonstrably lacking, then my comfort zone becomes decidedly uncomfortable.

  26. Emmanuel Maicas

    What strikes me in this article is the lack of good quality studies on both sides of the debate.

    %featured%As a Pathologist, I am asked to code every single cancer diagnosis. These numbers go to the Canadian Cancer Society who sits on a goldmine of health data. The people at the CCS could easily compare the incidence of osteosarcoma in towns with vs. without fluoride. Has this study been done? If not, why?%featured%

    If the answer is cost, my next question is what is the cost of not doing the study?

  27. jim bjork

    anyone in support of fluoridation: please search gary null’s research on fluoride. you won’t be in support of it after reading it

  28. jim bjork

    here’s johnny johnson again; who refuses to read the research. indulging in character assassination interminably. Fluoride in an enzyme/endocrine disruptor. it competes with iodine in your thyroid. iodine is essential for the normal production of thyroid hormones. Johnny, how do you determine the dose people receive? What about the contaminants in the product used to fluoridate the water? what about the impact of proper nutrition on the health of the teeth? Where is ingested fluoride stored in the body? What about skeletal fluorosis?What about the harvard IQ studies? These are not non-issues.

  29. Chelsea

    No substance should be mass medicated without the consent of EVERY end user, especially when we are talking about man made chemical industry byproduct that is contaminated with many known dangerous substances. Fluoride has no conclusive science behind it. To do this should be punishable by law as it is an abomination of our charter of rights.

    • chris price

      this comment shows the on going stupidity of the anti fluoride /vaccine lobby group.

      Fluoride is a natural mineral that has been around since the beginning of time, It is found in all natural things, water rock the air.
      It is not a man made product and has never been one ,it has been found that it can be extracted from rock as a byproduct of the fertilizer industry, and as such is cheap to aquire

      And once it is added to drinking water it comes under the strict international regulations regarding drinking water in regard to purity and contaminates so the “dangerous substances” argument is just scaremongering

      No one is “forced” to do anything in relation to water fluoridated at the optimal level, and at this level, it is not a “drug” or “medication” over which the FDA has any authority. It is simply a mineral, identical to that which already exists in water. As the US EPA has authority over all additives to public water systems, in the US, it is the EPA, not the FDA which fully controls and regulates fluoride added to water at the optimal level in the United States Were ANY laws, statutes, or Acts being violated by this public health initiative, it would not be allowed in the United States. It’s that simple.

      Best you keep away from activist websites, they poison your brain

      • Richard Hudon

        Sorry to read you name calling, Chris, but, I’ll reciprocate by asking you to look in the mirror for a glance at stupidity.

        Calcium fluoride is a mineral, as is Sodium fluoride, but the chemical used in fluoridation is Hydrofluorosilicic acid, as mentioned by other writers here, and, it is not a mineral; neither is the fluoride ion, or the Fluorine element: you would have failed my chemistry class with such an inane observation. The acid used is actually part of the waste produced by the mining for phosphate for the super-phosphate fertilizer industry – it is equivalent to the toxic waste tailings of other mining operations and comes to our water treatment plants untreated and untested before being used as a water additive in fluoridation.

        BTW – there are no such “strict international regulations”regarding fluoridation – I know, because I and others like me have been checking that fact and found it wanting.

        Medication it is indeed, since it is used to “prevent tooth decay” or, as reported in Ottawa’s water treatment mandatory annual report to the Minister of the Environment “During the final treatment step, fluoride is added **for prevention of dental cavities**” page 3, 2013, Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03 – that constitute medical treatment by definition, no mater what the dose.

        Truth does not cease to exist because it is ignored or turned into a lie.

  30. Jeanette Dagger

    We must eliminate all fluoridation processes in Canada. It is a nuclear waste that was used calcify the pineal gland. It does nothing for the teeth and gums and it can cause brain problems and cancer. GET RID OF IT EVERYWHERE!!!

    • chris price

      I would love to see the report that says fluoride it is “nucular waste”??

    • Fiona Dobson

      Now I’m laughing. Nuclear waste! No, but seriously I’ve heard the scientists were recently in Chernobyl scraping up the excess waste to use as fluoride. They’ve also been secretly sneaking into organic carrot farms to make deals with corrupt farmers to buy their carrots on the cheap. After all, we all know that carrots are stuffed full of fluoride. And please, don’t get me started on Soylent Green people……Got to go now..I can feel my pineal gland calcifying this very minute.

  31. Emile Begin

    Water fluoridation is forcing people, animals and our environment to consume hazardous waste diluted with diminishing fresh water, against individual and protected consent. “Officials” are hoping toxic hazardous waste confirmed to be stored in peoples bodies, bones and teeth including damaging other organs (Pineal and Thyroid gland) will not harm you. Everyone is the same. Are you for real?

    Approximately 50% of consumed fluoride is stored and retained in our bodies to our detriment according to researchers at the US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf. What more evidence do you need?

    Topically appropriate use of fluoride may help reduce cavities also spit out as directed by all dentists (and they use the good stuff not contaminated with arsenic and over 19 other toxins!) Have those who support fluoridation asked for, received and read about all of those related chemicals and their bio-accumulative, negative health impacts? Why do you ignore the defined and accepted harmful impacts?

    In our community of 70,000 and after 60 years of forced fluoridation, when given one chance, informed voters voted out forced fluoridation. Officials did not ask for related chemical information before adding hazardous waste to our water, choosing to ignore Material Safety Data sheets stating the harms and ignoring the condition of sales requiring purchasers (municipalities) to provide all end users (people who are forced to drink life giving water) with all documented harm facts. Fluoridation is not provided with informed consent in most communities.

    California and many other areas are in severe drought conditions, recovery may take tens of years or longer. They are beginning to really appreciate the requirement for pure, clean fresh water to sustain life.

    Who can go without drinking pure clean water and stay healthy?

    Please, end this fluoridation foolishness, for the health of all including our environment.

  32. Robert J. Fleming

    CANADA’S CHIEF DENTAL OFFICER SAYS FLUORIDATION WORKS – YET CANADIAN POPULATION STUDIES SHOW OTHERWISE

    In 1992 Comox/Courtenay/Campbell River communities in British Columbia, Canada ceased fluoridating their drinking water supplies.

    Two Canadian studies were ultimately conducted by the same researchers on this same population event.

    One study focused upon dental caries/decay rates following this fluoridation cessation.

    The other study measured the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis following this fluoridation cessation.

    These two studies could have ended debate about artificial water fluoridation. How? By publishing all the results together in one place and time.

    Remarkably, the two pieces of this single cohesive Canadian study were published separately; and five years apart; and overseas in a Danish journal.

    Why publish this single event population correlated data separately, and five years apart? Taken together, this research clearly showed that water fluoridation is not successful at reducing dental caries rates. Something happened when local fluoridation was shut-off, which resulted in an overall decline in the population’s dental caries rates. In fact, after fluoridation was shut-off, caries rates dropped and continued to drop, as did dental fluorosis rates. The only thing known to causes dental fluorosis is ingesting (swallowing) too much fluoride. Therefore, when dental fluorosis rates drop, you know the population is swallowing less fluoride. Relevant confounding variables were controlled for during this research. The use of fluoride supplements and fluoride dentifrice (fluoride toothpaste) also decreased during this same time period. Furthermore, shutting off local fluoridation does not suddenly alter or change a given population’s present socioeconomic status, level of education, health/dental insurance, diet, access to and use of tooth brushing, parenting skills, general lifestyle, method of earning a living, and so fourth. That makes this research noteworthy in its variable controls. Fluoridation was shut-off, and there was no subsequent heightened alternative fluoride ingestion, as was demonstrated by the noticeable decline in dental fluorosis rates within the communities studied.

    The two separately published studies:

    Gerardo Maupome´, D. Christopher Clark, Steven M. Levy & Jonathan Berkowitz, Patterns Of Dental Caries Following The Cessation Of Water Fluoridation, Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology, 2001, 29: 37–47

    Researchers compared prevalence and incidence of dental caries between fluoridation-ended and still-fluoridated communities in British Columbia, Canada. Data was collected on snacking, oral hygiene, exposure to fluoride technologies, and socioeconomic level. The prevalence of dental caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the still-fluoridated community. Quick assumption was made that multiple sources of alternative fluoride, besides water fluoridation, must have been responsible for dental caries decline in the fluoridation-ended community. No mention was made about any attempt to measure dental fluorosis in the fluoride-ended community to determine if fluoride was still being received through other sources. Why not, since that data was also available to these researchers?

    http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Maupome%C2%B4et-al-Patterns-Of-Dental-Caries-Following-The-Cessation-Of-Water-Fluoridation-Community-Dentistry-And-Oral-Epidemiology-2001-29-37%E2%80%9347.pdf

    D. Christopher Clark, Jay D. Shulman, Gerardo Maupome´ & Steven M. Levy, Changes In Dental Fluorosis Following The Cessation Of Water Fluoridation, Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology, 2006 34: 197–204

    Five years later in the same Danish journal these researchers published the findings on the prevalence of dental fluorosis after water fluoridation ended. (Why a Danish journal when these are Canadian/North American studies?) When fluoride was removed from the water supply the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis decreased significantly. The use of fluoride supplements and fluoride dentifrice (fluoride toothpaste) also decreased during this same time period.

    http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Clark-et-al-Changes-In-Dental-Fluorosis-Following-The-Cessation-Of-Water-Fluoridation-Community-Dentistry-And-Oral-Epidemiology-2006-34-197%E2%80%93204.pdf

    Something even more troubling:

    Health Canada’s Chief Dental Officer Cooney , as well as Clark and Levy (two principal researchers leading these two studies, and two of six experts sitting as Health Canada’s 2008 review panel on water fluoridation) are aware of this research, yet the expert panel still voted unanimously to support water fluoridation policy in Canada.

    A legitimate concern:

    Why not tell the public the whole truth?

    If the public was given the whole truth we would all know the questionable ‘merits’ of water fluoridation.

    Robert J. Fleming (President / Executive Director / Spokesperson)
    Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation ~ Canadiens Opposés à la Fluoration ~ COF-COF.ca

    • Administrative Assistant, COF-COF.ca

      HEALTH CANADA’S CHIEF DENTAL OFFICER (DR. PETER COONEY) HAS CONCEDED THAT WATER FLUORIDATION REDUCES CAVITY RATES BY LESS THAN HALF A CAVITY PER CHILD.

      LISTEN TO:

      Ontario Dental Association Fluoridation Information Night, Waterloo, Ontario 21-Oct-2010

      Dr. Cooney’s response to fluoridation’s less than half a cavity reduction per child, adolescent, permanent teeth.

      http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ODAs-Fluoridation-Information-Night-In-Waterloo-21-Oct-2010_Cooneys-response-to-fluoridations-less-than-one-cavity-reduction-per-person.mp3

      • chris price

        The robust main effect of fluoridation on dmftDMFT and the beneficial effect across socio-economic groups support fluoridation as a beneficial and justifiable population health intervention. Fluoridation was equitable in the sense that its benefits were particularly apparent in those groups with the poorest oral health profiles, though the nature of the findings prompts consideration of the values underlying the judgement of health equity.

        Drinking water fluoridation and oral health inequities in Canadian children.

    • Administrative Assistant, COF-COF.ca

      WHAT HAPPENS TO ONTARIO DENTISTS WHO SPEAK OUT AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION?

      After seemingly trying to side-step this direct question, Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario President Dr. Frank Stechey finally answers what would happen to Ontario dentists who chose to speak out against community water fluoridation; speaking a City of Thunder Bay, Ontario Council Meeting on July 20th 2009, under questioning from Thunder Bay Councillor Linda Rydholm. Thunder Bay Council subsequently voted to NOT implement municipal water fluoridation in their community.

      Have a look/listen:

      http://cof-cof.ca/2009/07/what-happens-to-ontario-dentists-who-would-speak-out-against-water-fluoridation/

    • chris price

      If the data you quote is so compelling , How come no international or local scientific community has not picked it up and run with it. It has been 10 years and no body seems interested. Wonder why??

    • WaterlooWatch

      On October 25, 2010 following four long years of education, campaigning, presentations, forums, and debates; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada citizens voted to shut down their 44 year fluoridation practice. Decommissioning of fluoridation equipment and hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) ensued shortly thereafter on November 29, 2010.

      What’s the fate of hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) chemical inventory when a municipality decides to end water fluoridation? Now that it can no longer be diluted into the drinking water supply, remaining hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) reverts back to hazardous waste status once again; requiring licensed, costly, hazardous waste handling, removal and proper disposal.

      Watch this short video (1min. 26sec.) below to witness one of Waterloo’s hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) fluoridation feed stations being decommissioned, drained, and taken down. All of Waterloo’s fluoridation feed stations were decommissioned and taken down, pursuant to the people’s democratic and informed vote.

      Also note that ‘hydrofluorosilicic’ can be seen misspelled on the chemical tanker shown in this video; incorrectly spelled “hydro fluorisilicic”. It should be one word, and should be fluoro… not fluori…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_QYoKS4Zeg

      http://www.WaterlooWatch.com

      • chris price

        waterloo watch is not a reliable information source

        • Richard Hudon

          Attack the source, not the facts, eh! – the favorite tactic and refuge of those who have little or nothing to offer to advance the discussion to a civil and truthful conclusion.

  33. Rita

    This article leaves the reader with the impression that the fluoride put in water systems is naturally occurring with this quote, “Dick Ito, a professor of community dentistry at the University of Toronto, takes issue with that line of argument. ‘Fluoride is natural. It’s in all waters,’ he explains. ‘What we’re doing is optimizing the level to a level where it can prevent caries [tooth decay]….we don’t think it’s any different from fortifying salt with iodine or cereals with folate to prevent other diseases.'”

    Numerous comments stated otherwise, so I looked up the MSDS for hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is apparently one of the names of the “fluoride” put into water systems. After reading this MSDS, how can anyone think it’s a good idea to be putting this into drinking water?
    http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/msds/fluosilicic.acid.fluorosilicic.pdf

    Does anyone know what type of “fluoride” is put into the water systems, in say, Toronto? Publishing articles like this only encourage me to question everything “public health” tells me. Thank you to all of the people who have commented.

    • Chris price

      And I would love to see the comment that say fluoride is not a natural mineral, but I would like it from a reliable, quality, professional source and that will not include any activist site

      • Rita

        ClearTech Industries from Saskatoon – Product use – fluoridation

        http://www.cleartech.ca/msds/sillyacid.pdf

        If anyone out there can read that PDF and then tell me that we should be putting this into drinking water I will be horrified!

        • chris price

          wow so we have a data sheet for the concentrate. Show me one from the water authority about the drinking water

  34. Robert J. Fleming

    CAN WE TRUST WATER FLUORIDATION? CAN WE RELY ON THE EXPERTS?

    By: Robert J. Fleming

    Date: Originally published November, 2009

    Location: Region of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

    Everything about drinking water comes down to trusting the forthrightness and credibility of those in charge.

    Last week our Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Nolan, finally admitted fluoridation was off across Waterloo for most of 2009. System failures and scheduled maintenance were blamed for simultaneous ruin of all fluoridation feed sites.

    Protocol is to report within 90 days. Why keep things a secret from the public, dentists, physicians, and pharmacists for some 200 days?

    Daily consumption of fluoridated water was supposed to be important to oral health. Evidently, not at all important when it’s off. Should we even fluoridate?

    In January 2008 Nolan spoke on fluoridation at Waterloo Council. Nolan said, “The compound itself, HFSA, is actually a gas, and so in order to use it and ship it, it’s compressed … and so, for sure, the concentration in that cylinder would be quite toxic if, you know, that gas was released … ”

    HFSA (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is a water-based scrubbing mixture from smokestack chimney emissions of phosphate fertilizer production. It’s not a gas, it’s a liquid. It’s not shipped in compressed/pressurized form, nor is it shipped in pressurized tanker trucks.

    Just read any HFSA certificate of analysis accompanying each shipment, or any related material safety data sheet.

    Observe fluoridation sites where HFSA flows out of a Region owned delivery truck, and is dribbled into water.

    Review health and safety training about dangers of HFSA splashes when handling.

    Google HFSA on the internet.

    HFSA has been used in our Region for almost three decades. Were you told?

    During the same presentation Nolan was asked, “Is there evidence that we’re fluoridating water in Kitchener or people in Waterloo are not receiving fluoridated water?” Nolan claimed, “No, this has been a long enough standing issue that our system has grown up this way, and we have valves that stop Waterloo water from going into Kitchener, and stop Kitchener water from going into Waterloo.”

    Despite Nolan’s claims, a citizen later proved that Waterloo’s fluoridated water goes to all of Elmira, all of St. Jacobs, other parts of Woolwich Township, parts of Wilmot Township, and parts of Kitchener, without these municipalities being asked or told.

    How could our Medical Officer ever handle a water health emergency, stop the flow of over-fluoridated water and notify affected communities, without knowing where that water flows to? Is proper emergency planning in place, in light of such damning oversights? Can we trust over-fluoridation will never occur, and proper health alerts will always occur?

    Some dentists claim they know which child comes from fluoridated Waterloo, simply by looking in the child’s mouth. One wonders how so, given the much broader and secretive Regional fluoridation program going on.

    What if a dentist or doctor in one of these ‘never-told’ fluoridated communities prescribes fluoride supplements? The result is double-dosed patients. What about the risk to ‘never-told” fluoride-sensitive patients and kidney patients, who do suffer serious consequences.

    Health Canada just recently lowered the recommended fluoridation level in drinking water, again, out of concern for the public.

    Since communities beyond Waterloo were never told they’re drinking fluoridated water, did anyone bother to tell them their fluoridation was now off?

    Nolan, now well apprised of these fumbles, has yet to make public acknowledgement, public apology, or public correction.

    Fumbling and covering up led to the Walkerton, Ontario water tragedy. We are far better off getting our fluoride from toothpaste, mouth rinse, and our dentist – where concentration, dose and informed consent can and will be managed.

    Robert J. Fleming (President / Executive Director / Spokesperson)
    Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation ~ Canadiens Opposés à la Fluoration ~ COF-COF.ca

  35. chris price

    usual scaremongering from the anti fluoride/vaccine lot

    The data sheet he referrers to it for the concentrated shipment not the fluoride that is at your tap

    Fluoride is not “dribbled’ into the water it is added under strict controls.

    Fluoride is a natural mineral and is extracted as a byproduct of the manufacture of fertilizer from the rock.It is not made in a lab or anything like that other, byproducts are used in soft drinks, coke and pepsi But you dont hear anything about that

    Dosage concentration are indeed managed
    The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily “dose” of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.
    The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

    Informed consent is another stupid red herring from the ati fluoride/vaccine lot. Why do you need informed consent from anyone ,,You are deciding if the item you drink is good or not, the only informed consent you require is your own.

    So really there is as usual, no valid evidence why people should not use fluoride in all this unreliable comment

  36. Richard Hudon

    “As Radbourne says, when it comes to fluoride in the water, “the silent majority remains silent.””

    The silent majority is too distracted and too busy living their lives to look into the problem, too busy to assess and evaluate the impact and decide on the value of liberating an industry of its toxic waste for the propagandized false hope and belief of tooth decay prevention.

    “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” — Martin Luther King Jr
    “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all times.” — Robert Carton, Ph.D, EPA scientist, 1992.Dear Johny Johnson.

  37. Kurt Ferre DDS

    Here’s what the CDC says about fluoride additives used in fluoridation:

    Fluoride Additives Are Not Different From Natural Fluoride

    “Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as FSA or sodium fluoride. Two recent scientific studies listed below demonstrate that the same fluoride ion is present in naturally occurring fluoride or fluoride drinking water additives and that no intermediates or other products were observed at pH levels as low as 3.5. In addition, fluoride metabolism is not affected differently by the chemical compounds nor are they affected by whether the fluoride is present naturally or artificially.
    • The ionic speciation study conducted in 2006 mentioned previously (Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Re-examination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by fluoride NMR and pH measurement. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:8:2572)
    • The pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride was studied by a 2008 study (G.M. Whitford, F.C. Sampaio, C.S. Pinto, A.G. Maria, V.E.S. Cardoso, M.A.R. Buzalaf, Pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride: Lack of effect of chemical compound, Archives of Oral Biology, 53 (2008) 1037–1041).”

    In other words, “Fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. There is no difference”.

    • Marube

      In his classical treatise on fluoride intoxication, Kaj Roholm (Fig. 7-1, page 89) divided inorganic fluorine compounds into three categories according to their toxicity. As shown in Table 7-1 (next page), first and foremost in toxicity are the fluoride gases: hydrogen fluoride (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF ).
      Then follow, in order of decreasing toxicity, aqueous solutions of HF and hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and the more readily soluble fluoride and fluorosilicate salts.
      Fluoride compounds that are relatively insoluble in water, such as cryolite and calcium fluoride, are much less poisonous in the solid form. In aqueous solution – necessarily very dilute because of its low solubility – the toxicity of calcium fluoride is comparable to that of sodium fluoride (at the same concentra- tion).
      In other words, natural calcium fluoride, is less soluable therefore less toxic than the artificial fluoride Hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) added to top up the natural fluoride in drinking water.
      http://www.whale.to/b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf

  38. Christine

    Hmm, a colleague has told me that they made the following comment on 2015/07/09 and then again on 2015/07/10, however the comment has still not been published. What’s up with that, Healthy Debate?

    “Fluoridation poles are misleading as they don’t inform the residents that the chemical to fluoridate their water is Hydrofluorosilcic Acid (HFSA)*, an industrial toxin. Constituents think, and/or are led to believe, that the fluoride used will be pharmaceutical grade like what the dentists use. It is illegal for dentists to use HFSA. Clearly no one in their right mind will vote to agree on adding traces of lead, arsenic, mercury etc. as found in HFSA to their municipal drinking water!

    *HFSA does not meet Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). NSF60 certification for this chemical, used to justify the addition of this additive, does not have any safety studies for its intended use. NSF60 Standards rely on third party certification from agencies such as Health Canada and FDA. Health Canada and FDA have not approved HSFA, nor the pharmaceutical grade fluoride, as a Natural Health Product, they also do not have safety studies for HFSA, in fact, even the pharmaceutical grade fluoride cannot be sold in health food stores – it is only available by prescription!

    Without any safety studies, how one can even tag this article under ‘Evidence Based Medicine’ is beyond me??? Really now!

    Dumping HFSA in the environment is already illegal so why is it OK (without safety studies) to do so via our water supply?

    Despite dental pressure, 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical concerns…

    A pole suggesting that people decide weather to violate our basic laws on water safety, the environment, fisheries, medical ethics, drugs and food under the pretense of democracy is hardly democratic!”

Comments are closed.