fluoride causes cancer


Undeniable evidence from numerous studies proves that fluoride causes cancer

Monday, May 09, 2016 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently released a document called Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts that highlights the many health hazards caused by the consumption of fluoride. And the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) recently submitted a compilation of its own to OEHHA, which is soon to make a final decision concerning fluoride’s toxicity, providing additional evidence that fluoride causes cancer.

FAN has been working for many years to raise awareness about the toxicity of fluoride, with the eventual goal of getting it removed from public water supplies. And its most recent efforts involving OEHHA could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so to speak, as it has the potential to unleash the truth about fluoride on a massive scale, and spark a revolt against its use.

According to a recent FAN press release, OEHHA’s report was birthed out of an inquiry into the science of fluoride’s toxicity. It is also a prelude to the group’s scientific advisory board Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) meeting to be held on October 12 – 13, 2011, which will make a decision on the status of fluoride as a carcinogen.

The OEHHA report already states that “multiple lines of evidence (show) that fluoride is incorporated into bones where it can stimulate cell division of osteoblasts [bone-forming cells],” an admission that already recognizes fluoride as a cause of bone cancer. The report goes on to state that fluoride induces “genetic changes other cellular changes leading to malignant transformation, and cellular immune response thereby increasing the risk of development of osteosarcomas.”

To add to this, FAN presented OEHHA with additional studies from the National Research Council (NRC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and several esteemed universities that all illustrate a link between fluoride consumption and various cancers, including liver and oral cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors.

With this mountain of evidence, the only logical conclusion OEHHA can come to in October is that fluoride is a toxic poison — and just like lead and other known toxic chemicals already are in California, worthy of being publicly identified as dangerous.

“While we understand that there will be tremendous pressure put on the CIC and OEHHA by the proponents of fluoride and fluoridation, we ask that the Committee continue to rely on its high level of scientific knowledge and integrity when deliberating and reaching a final conclusion on the carcinogenicity status of fluoride and its salts,” wrote FAN as part of its official submission.

To read the entire FAN press release, which contains further details about the cancer studies included, visit:


News from Fluoride Action Network

February 28, 2015

Dear Raphael:

A New Day, Another Study

Just when you thought we wouldn’t get any more bombshells this week, a study was published yesterday linking fluoridation to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States.

The study entitled, “Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association,” was published in the journal Environmental Health.  According to the authors:

“State prevalence of artificial water fluoridation in 1992 significantly positively predicted state prevalence of ADHD in 2003, 2007 and 2011, even after controlling for socioeconomic status.

A multivariate regression analysis showed that after socioeconomic status was controlled each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011. Overall state water fluoridation prevalence (not distinguishing between fluoridation types) was also significantly positively correlated with state prevalence of ADHD for all but one year examined.

Conclusions: Parents reported higher rates of medically-diagnosed ADHD in their children in states in which a greater proportion of people receive fluoridated water from public water supplies.” 

Stay tuned for more FAN coverage of this and the thyroid study as they continue to get covered by the media, and as the pro-fluoridation lobby responds with their criticisms and propaganda.

More Great Media Coverage of Thyroid Study

The media continues to widely cover the new study published earlier this week in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health linking fluoridation to an increase in hypothyroidism in the U.K.  Since the publication of FAN’s bulletin on the study entitled “Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?  A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water,” the story has been covered by more mainstream media outlets then we can list.  Some include:


Philadelphia Inquirer

UK Daily Mail

The Oregonian

Birmingham Mail

The New American

Our favorite news story published since Tuesday’s great Newsweek article, was in the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday.  Two endocrinologists were interviewed and both had great quotes in opposition to fluoridation, including the following:

“This dramatic increase in thyroid dysfunction associated with fluoridation of the water supply adds to previous studies indicating that fluoride has an inhibitory effect on the thyroid gland,” said Dr. Terry Davies, a professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York City.

The study “supports the argument that our water supply should be pure water and nothing else,” said Davies, who is also an endocrinologist at The Mount Sinai Hospital.

A Steady Stream of Victories

February has been a very good month for the fluoride-free movement, not only due to the publication of two great studies, but also due to a steady stream of communities ending the practice, with even more on the verge:  

South Dublin, Ireland—South Dublin County Council become the 5th major council calling for an end to fluoridation in 2015 and the 10th in the past year, collectively representing more than 2 million Irish residents.  This comes less than a month after councilors in Cavan County and the community of Galway both passed motions calling for members to register their opposition to fluoridation.

Yoshikawa, Japan—Officials in this Japanese city with 70,000 residents decided against fluoridating the drinking water after considering a fluoridation proposal for 17 years.  The proposal was defeated by a strong fluoride-free grassroots movement in combination with the election of a new Mayor who opposed the practice.

New Brunswick, New Jersey—Councilors voted to stop using fluoride in the water supply for their 50,000 residents as part of their plans to improve the town’s infrastructure.  They felt that fluoride was readily available in other forms and that people were choosing to drink bottle water instead of tap water, making the practice a waste of money.  Also in NJ, Egg Harbor will hold a meeting on March 5 to consider ending the practice after the Water and Sewer Department Superintendent urged councilors to oppose the practice.

Boynton Beach, Florida—Town officials will no longer fluoridate the drinking water for their 70,000 residents due to the cost of updating the broken fluoride injection equipment and the limited availability of the additive.

Montello, Wisconsin—Councilors approved a motion ending fluoridation on February 12th after contacting area dentists and learning that “a person would get more fluoride from brushing their teeth daily than by drinking a gallon of city water daily.”  The decision will save nearly $40,000 this year, and $7,000 each year.  Rice Lake, Wisconsin is also considering removing fluoride. 

Brackenridge, Pennsylvania—Councilors are discontinuing their fluoridation program because of the availability of fluoride in other forms, and because, as one councilor stated, “…it’s dangerous to work with.”  Brackenridge follows Ford, PA, which voted to end fluoridation in December.           

Arkansas Legislature—The full Arkansas House passed legislation (HB1355) that will give municipalities the ability to opt-out of the statewide fluoridation mandate, effectively reversing the policy by allowing local control on the issue.  The bill won by a vote of 60-34 despite efforts by the Arkansas Dental Association to oppose it.  The bill will now go to the Senate, where it will have a public hearing in the Health committee before being heard on the Senate floor.

February’s Teleconference Audio

If you missed this month’s International Fluoride Free Teleconference you can now download the audio.  February’s call was dedicated to campaigners from around the world coming together to offer each other support in the effort to end fluoridation.

Click Here to Download the Audio 

You can also register for the March teleconference entitled, “Social Media: Today’s Way to Change Hearts and Minds.”  The call will take place on Saturday, March 14th at 5PM (Eastern Time).  Register today! 

News You May Have Missed

New York’s Fluoridation Fuss, 50 Years Later (New York)

NYS Governor is Misled About Fluoride Safety (New York)

In Oneida, Opposing Views Expressed on Fluoridation (New York)

Bennington: Citizens Against Fluoridated Water Speak Out (Vermont)

Fluoride Toxicity in Plants Irrigated With City Water (Michigan)

Sonoma: Council Delays Stand on Fluoridation (California)

Farmington’s Efforts to Remove Fluoridation Ordinance (Missouri)

Rice Lake Considers Removing Fluoride (Wisconsin)

Fluoride Committee Appointed by Topsfield Town Moderator (Massachusetts)

Lewiston-Auburn Water Agencies to Repair Fluoride System (Maine)

Campaign to Stop Adding Fluoride to Hull Water Supply (U.K.)

New Push to Block Ballina Fluoridation Plan (Australia)

Acclaimed Fluoridation Experts Touring New Zealand in February (New Zealand)

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Manager
Fluoride Action Network

Fluoride part 2


Promoters of fluoridation repeat ad nauseam the mantra that fluoridation is “safe”, “effective” and “cost effective.” In part 2 I discuss the 6 KEY PAPERS that challenge the mantra of fluoridation’s “safety.” Or to be more precise – since there is no question that fluoride is very toxic and damages health – we will demonstrate that there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all citizens drinking artificially fluoridated water (and getting fluoride from other sources) from known health effects.


5. National Resource Council of the National Academies. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.

A landmark report on the toxicology of fluoride is available to read and search for free online. It is one of the very few reviews of fluoride for which the panel was balanced. It contained both pro and anti-fluoridation scientists. The report concluded that the current U.S. maximum contaminant level for fluoride (4 ppm) in drinking water is an unsafe level for human health. The panel recommended that the EPA conduct a new risk assessment to establish a goal for a safe level of fluoride in drinking water (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, MCLG) and thence a new Federally enforceable standard (or MCL). After over 8 years the EPA has not completed this determination and so for 8 years the US continued to operate under unsafe standards for fluoride in water.

BONE DAMAGE. Among many health concerns the panel noted that fluoride damages the bone and accumulates there with a significantly long half-live. The first symptoms of bone damage are indistinguishable from arthritis and with further accumulation (fluoride’s half life in bone is at least 20 years) it makes the bones more brittle and prone to fracture.

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTER. The panel also concluded that fluoride is an endocrine disrupter. It lowers thyroid function and accumulates in the pineal gland (see paper 6 below).

NEUROTOXICIY.  Many animal studies indicate that fluoride can enter and damage the brain via a number of mechanisms. At thetime this review was published only 5 IQ studies were available. Since publication this total has risen dramatically. Including new studies and older Chinese studies that have been translated by FAN, there are now (as of Dec 2014) 49 studies, of which 42 show an association between exposure to fairly modest doses of fluoride and lowered IQ (see papers 7-9 below). For those who want more details of all the animal and human studies on fluoride’s toxicity see FAN’s health database

OSTEOSARCOMA.At the time of publication the NRC panel had been informedbyFAN of a doctoral thesis by Elise Bassin from Harvard, whichindicated an association between exposure to fluoridated water at a critical age range in young boys (6-8 years) and succumbing by the age of 20, to osteosarcoma, a frequently fatal bone cancer. The NRC did not take a definitive position on this study preferring to wait for the study to be published. Bassin’s publication came in May of 2006 (discussed below, see paper 10). However the same edition of the journal also contained a letter from her pro-fluoridation thesis advisor Chester Douglass claiming that his larger study would show that her thesis did not hold. However, he has never published this promised rebuttal of her thesis.

Subsets of US population exceeding EPA’s safe reference dose. While the NRC review did not study fluoridation as such (either its risk or benefits), the authors did provide an exposure analysis (see Chapter 2). The panel showed that several subsets of the population drinking fluoridated water at 1 ppm fluoride (including bottle-fed infants) are exceeding the EPA’s safe reference dose of 0.06 mg/kg/day (see the diagram on page 85). This finding makes nonsense of the claim by both ADA and the CDC that this very important review was not relevant to water fluoridation.

No margin of safety. Based on this review it is abundantly clear that fluoride damages health and that for several end-points (including lowered IQ), there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all individuals in a large population drinking fluoridated water. This critical conclusion is often lost on promoters of fluoridation who confuse concentration with dose. They simplistically compare the concentration of fluoride in the water of the community examined with the concentration of fluoride in artificially fluoridated water. Such a comparison does not provide a margin of safety. For that one needs two things:

First, one has to ascertain the range of dosesin the fluoridated population. This takes into account how much water citizens drink (which can be very large because there is no control on the amount of water consumed) and how much fluoride they get from other sources.

Second, in order to determine a safe dose (sufficient to protect everyone) one also has to take into account the full range of sensitivity to a toxic substance anticipated in a large population. It is the failure to do this that has been the biggest and most reckless mistake of the fluoridation program since it began and fluoridation promoters today.

6. Luke J. 2001. Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland.Caries Research 35(2):125-128. See also Luke’s PhD thesis click here.

Luke showed that fluoride accumulates on the calcified deposits in the human pineal gland and lowers melatonin production in animals. No health agency in any fluoridating country has attempted to repeat Luke’s work despite the fact that melatonin levels have been related to many health problems. For example, Autistic children produce no melatonin.

7. Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, et al. 2003a. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36(2):84-94, and Xiang Q, Liang Y, Zhou M, and Zang H. 2003b. Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study [letter]. Fluoride 36(3):198-199.

Of the 42 (out of 49) studies (as of Dec 2014) that have found a relationship between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ, the Xiang study is one of the most important.

In the Xiang study, the authors controlled for key confounding values such as lead, and iodine (and arsenic retrospectively), parental income and educational status. In addition to comparing the mean IQ of children between the high-fluoride and low-fluoride village (a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole age range) they also sub-divided the children in the high-fluoride village into 5 groups with mean fluoride concentrations ranging from 0.7 to 4.3 ppm (see Table 8 in their study).

By focusing on one village they eliminated any other environmental differences between the two villages. They found that as the fluoride concentration in the five sub-groups increased two things happened: 1) the mean IQ systematically decreased and 2) the percentage of children with an IQ less than 80 (borderline mentally handicapped) dramatically increased from 0% to 37.5%.

Lowest level where IQlowered. The lowering of IQ is first observed in the sub-group at 1.53 ppm, and bearing in mind the range of fluoride concentration for that sub-group, one has to conservatively assume that some children in this study would have had their IQ lowered at the lower end of the range fluoride concentrations in this group 1.26 ppm.

Such a result leaves absolutely no margin of safety to protect all children in an artificially fluoridated community (fluoride levels between 0.7 to 1.2 ppm) from this serious outcome. Please note there is no margin of safety to protect:

A) Against the full range of exposure, especially when you consider the different amounts of water drunk by children and their exposure to other sources such as toothpaste. It should also be added that in two respects the Chinese children in the Xiang study would have had less exposure to fluoride from two key sources than American children. Children living in rural Chinese villages are less likely to be using fluoridated toothpaste and less likely to be bottle-fed (bottle-fed babies, where the formula is made up with fluoridated water, get about 200 times more fluoride than breast-fed babies).

B) Nor does it protect against the full range of sensitivity expected in a large population (as discussed in 5 above).

The last children that need a further lowering of IQ are children from low-income families, whose IQ has already been compromised by so many other factors (e.g. poorer diet, poorer educational opportunities and more exposure to pollution). Yet it is these children who are the primary target of fluoridation programs.

8. Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P. 2012. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10):1362–1368.

This Meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies was conducted by a team from Harvard including world-famous neuroscientist Philippe Grandjean (an expert on mercury and author of the recent book, “Only One Chance”). This team acknowledged weaknesses in many of the studies but also noted the remarkable consistency of the finding that IQ was lowered in 26 out of the 27 studies reviewed. The average lowering was 7 IQ points, which is substantial, considering that at the population level even an average lowering of one IQ should be avoided.

9. Choi AL, Zhang Y, Sun G, et al. 2015. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 47:96–101.

This Pilot study in China was carried out at fluoride levels, which overlap levels used in US fluoridation programs. They didn’t measure IQ specifically in this study but reported the results of a very simple test: the child’s ability to repeat a sequence of numbers both forwards and backwards. Even children with very mild dental fluorosis performed less well on this specific mental development test, than children without fluorosis. One of the experts involved in this study was Dr. David Bellenger who is world famous for his studies on lead’s neurotoxicity.

Another co-author was Dr. Philippe Grandjean and in an editorial on his website “Chemical Brain Drain”he used this study to counteract the claim from proponents that the IQ findings were not relevant to the fluoride levels used in water fluoridation. For the children in this study, Grandjean writes:

“Their lifetime exposures to fluoride from drinking water covered the full range allowed in the US. Among the findings, children with fluoride-induced mottling of their teeth – even the mildest forms that appears as whitish specks on the enamel – showed lower performance on some neuropsychological tests. This observation runs contrary to popular wisdom that the enamel effects represent a cosmetic problem only and not a sign of toxicity. At least one of five American children has some degree of mottling of their teeth…Prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.” (my emphasis, PC).

10. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control, May;17(4):421-8.

This is the only study of osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer in children), which studied the age at which exposure to fluoride was experienced. The authors write:

We observed that for males diagnosed before the age of 20 years, fluoride level in drinking water during growth was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma, demonstrating a peak in the odds ratios from 6 to 8 years of age. All of our models were remarkably robust in showing this effect, which coincides with the mid-childhood growth spurt.

The finding that there may a critical window of vulnerability in young men has never been refuted – or even investigated – since Bassin’s paper was published in 2006. The shocking fact is that with this paper comes the possibility that a few young men each year may be dying from osteosarcoma because they have been exposed to fluoridated water at a critical age. Even though this has not been refuted the practice of fluoridation continues to be pushed by health authorities. Where is the precautionary principle here?


Between them the TEN KEY PAPERS (listed in part 1) invalidate all three claims of the pro-fluoridation mantra.

Fluoridation is not effective.

 The largest US study (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990) and the most precise study of children’s tooth decay (Warren et al., 2010) provide little evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay. Featherstone, 2000 (and others) have provided the probable reason for these problematic results. The predominant (if any) benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic. There is no need to swallow fluoride to fight tooth decay and there is no justifiable reason to force people to drink fluoridated water against their will.

Fluoridation is not safe.

There is no disputing the fact that fluoride damages health but what about fluoridation? The landmark 500-page review by the National Research Council (NRC, 2006) showed that certain subsets of the US public are exceeding the EPA’s safe reference dose for fluoride, including bottle-fed infants. The NRC (2006) reviewed many health impacts for which there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all individuals drinking fluoridated water. These include lowered thyroid function, accumulation in the pineal gland (Luke et al., 2001), bone damage, and lowered IQ (Xiang at al, 2003a,b). Xiang found that some children had their IQ lowered at fluoride levels as low as 1.26 ppm. Xiang’ study was one of 42 studies that have found this effect. A Review by a Harvard team (Choi et al, 2012) found an average lowering of 7 IQ points in 26 out of 27 studies. Choi et al, 2015 found learning disabilities in children with very mild fluorosis, which impacts many US children. Thus fluorosis at any level can no longer be considered merely a cosmetic affect. A study by Bassin et al., 2006 has disturbingly shown that some young boys may be losing their lives each year from being exposed to fluoridated water at 1 ppm in their 6th, 7th and 8th years. This study remains unrefuted.

Fluoridation is not cost-effective.

Lo and Thiessen(2014) have demolished the claim by CDC economist Susan Griffin that for every dollar spent on fluoridation $38 is saved on dental treatment. This claim by Griffin has been used Ad Nauseam by promoters of fluoridation including many state public health officials. Will they continue to do so? 

Paul Connett, PhD
Fluoride Action Network
Co-Author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010)

See Bulletin Online

Fluoride Resource studies

Ten Key Papers that Challenge the Pro-fluoridtion Mantra


Promoters of fluoridation repeat ad nauseam the mantra that fluoridation is “safe”, “effective” and “cost effective” (how many times have unsuspecting legislators been told that for every $1 spent we save $38?). Instead of backing up these claims with any solid scientific evidence, they use a long list of impressive but fairly meaningless (i.e. “science-free”) endorsements. This is not surprising because the science is not there to support the mantra. What is surprising is that public health officials and professional bodies repeat these claims with no sense of embarrassment. I believe that historians will be astounded that so many “respectable” professional associations and health agencies (in the handful of countries that fluoridate) have endorsed a practice, which has such little scientific and no ethical justification. In Orwell’s Animal Farm the pigs rule, in the fluoridated world the sheep rule.

Below is a list of 10 studies (actually nine studies and one review) that invalidate this mantra.  Fluoridation is neither effective, nor safe, nor cost-effective. In addition I give a few words about the first four studies that challenge the mantra of fluoridation’s “effectiveness” and  “cost-effectiveness.”

In part 2 of this article, I will say a few words on the papers that pertain to safety.

Part 1. A Listing of the 10 studies

1. Brunelle and Carlos. 1990. Recent Trends in DentalCaries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research,69(Special Issue):723-727.

2. Featherstone JD. 2000.The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), Jul; 131(7):887-99.

3. Warren JJ, et al. 2009. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 69(2):111-15. Spring.

4. Ko L, Thiessen KM. 2014. A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

5. Luke J. 2001. Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35(2):125-128. See also Luke’s PhD thesis click here.

6. Xiang Q, et al. 2003a. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36(2):84-94, and Xiang Q, et al. 2003b. Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study [letter]. Fluoride 36(3):198-199.

7. National Resource Council of the National Academies. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.

8. Bassin EB, et al. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control, May;17(4):421-8.

9. Choi AL, Grandjean P, et al. 2012. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10):1362–1368.

10. Choi AL, et al. 2015. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot studyNeurotoxicology and Teratology, 47:96–101.

A few words about papers 1-4.


1. Brunelle and Carlos. 1990.Recent Trends in DentalCaries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research,69 (Special Issue):723-727.

This was the largest survey of dental decay in children in the US (the authors studied 39,000 children in 84 communities). The study was organized by the pro-fluoridation National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR). These NIDR authors found an average difference of only 0.6 of one tooth surface between children (aged 5-17) who lived all their lives in a fluoridated community compared to a non-fluoridated community (see Table 6). This result was NOT shown to be statistically significant. The pro-fluoridation bias of the authors becomes apparent in the way they present these unimpressive results in their abstract. They do not report the difference in tooth decay as an absolute value (i.e. 0.6 of one tooth surface) but as a relative % difference. This value of 18% looks more impressive than an absolute saving of 0.6 of about 100 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth (there are 128 when all the teeth have erupted). Nor did the authors admit that they had not shown that this result was statistically significant: it wasn’t! Here is an excerpt from their abstract, which says more about the politics of this issue than the science.

“Children who had always been exposed to community water fluoridation had mean DMFS (decayed missing and filled surfaces, PC) about 18% lower than those who had never lived in a fluoridated communities. When some of the “background” effect of topical fluoride was controlled, this difference increased to 25%. The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology.” (my emphasis, PC)


2. Featherstone JD. 2000.The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), Jul; 131(7):887-99.

In this article, which was a cover story in JADA edition of July 2000, Featherstone reached the same conclusions that many prominent dental researchers had reached over the previous 20 years: Namely, that the predominant mechanism of fluoride’s beneficial action is topical not systemic. The CDC acknowledged the same thing in 1999. In other words you don’t have to swallow fluoride to protect your teeth and therefore there is no need to force it on people who don’t want it via their drinking water. This is probably one of the reasons why, according to the World Health Organizations data online, that tooth decay rates in 12-year-olds have been declining at about the same rates in non-fluoridated as in fluoridated countries since the 1960s (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/who-data/ ). Here are Featherstone’s conclusions:


Fluoride, the key agent in battling caries, works primarily via topical mechanisms: inhibition of demineralization, enhancement of remineralization and inhibition of bacterial enzymes.


Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces caries via these topical mechanisms.

3. Warren JJ, Levy SM, Broffitt B. et al. 2009. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 69(2):111-15. Spring.

If the Brunelle and Carlos (1990) paper was the largest US government funded study, the Warren et al (2009) paper was the most precise. This investigation was conducted as part of the “Iowa study,” which has been examining tooth decay in a cohort of children since birth. Warren et al. examined tooth decay as a function of daily ingestion of fluoride in mg/day (i.e. they examined individual exposure rather than the traditional way of comparing dental decay rates between communities with different concentrations of fluoride in water). The authors could not determine a clear relationship between caries experience and daily dose in mg/day. The authors’ state:

These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.

CONCLUSIONS: Given the overlap among caries/fluorosis groups in mean fluoride intake and extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, firmly recommending an “optimal” fluoride intake is problematic.

Please note that all three of these studies were carried out by pro-fluoridation dental researchers. Many dentists are oblivious of the fact that research carried out by their own pro-fluoridation colleagues has undermined the effectiveness that they claim. In addition it should be noted that in the 70 years since fluoridation was launched in 1945 there has never been a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) to establish in a scientific fashion that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay. This is the gold standard used by the FDA to establish the efficacy of any drug. Considering such a flimsy scientific basis for the effectiveness of this practice it is the height of arrogance to force a known toxic substance on people who don’t want it.


4. Ko L, Thiessen KM. 2014. A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

This paper demolished the claim by Susan Griffin (an economist at the CDC) that for every dollar spent on fluoridation $38 was saved on dental costs. This statement has been used countless times by state dental directors, public health officials and other promoters of fluoridation.  We have provided more details on this in a previous bulletin.

In part 2, I will say a few words about papers 5-10 that challenge the mantra of fluoridation’s “safety.”

Paul Connet, PhD
Fluoride Action Network

Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium – NaturalNews.com

Natural News exclusive: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium

via Natural News exclusive: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium – NaturalNews.com.

Natural News exclusive: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The sodium fluoride added to U.S. water supplies is contaminated with the toxic elements lead, tungsten and aluminum, a Natural News Forensic Food Labs investigation has revealed. Strontium and uranium were also found in substantial quantities in some samples, raising additional questions about the purity of industrial fluoride used for water fluoridation.

These ICP-MS results, shown below, were determined with the very same ICP-MS laboratory instrumentation used by the FDA and various universities. Mike Adams, director of the lab and one of the world’s leading researchers into heavy metals contamination of foods, conducted the research.

Research summary and results

To conduct the research, Natural News acquired “pure” sodium fluoride from six chemical manufacturers in China who export fluoride for use in municipal water supplies and other industrial applications (such as pesticides).

Roughly 500 grams of white crystalline powder was acquired from each of the six companies in China.

From those original samples, approximately 0.5 grams of each sample was carefully weighed in laboratory vials, then digested using high purity “trace grade” acids suitable for ICP-MS analysis.

Following digestion, the samples were normalized using laboratory-grade water (in an acid matrix), then dilution factors were calculated in the ICP-MS control software.

Samples were then run via ICP-MS, following strict quality control procedures including the use of acid blanks, mid-range calibration checks, NIST-traceable standards and verifying the conformity of calibration concentration curves.

The results of the six sodium fluoride samples are shown here in parts per billion (ppb)

MAX aluminum: 283,218 ppb
MAX arsenic: 137 ppb
MAX strontium: 9417 ppb
MAX lead: 988 ppb
MAX uranium: 1415 ppb
MAX tungsten: presence confirmed in 2 of 6 samples but quantitative analysis not conducted on tungsten

AVG aluminum: 69364 ppb
AVG arsenic: 70 ppb
AVG strontium: 1751 ppb
AVG lead: 299 ppb
AVG uranium: 239 ppb

As with everything tested at the Natural News Forensic Food Labs, all samples are held in storage for future validation.

Comments from lead researcher Mike Adams

We now have irrefutable scientific proof that the sodium fluoride used in U.S. water supplies is contaminated with toxic elements, heavy metals and other elements which have radioactive isotopes (strontium and uranium) that are present in the environment at trace levels.

The presence of these elements in water fluoridation chemicals cannot be refuted by any informed person, as the evidence is easily confirmed by any competent laboratory running ICP-MS instrumentation.

We also know that U.S. cities which foolishly engage in water fluoridation almost never test their raw materials for heavy metals contamination. After all, there is no law against dumping toxic heavy metals into public water supplies as long as the bags of powder are labeled “sodium fluoride.” While the EPA does require municipal water suppliers to test their water for overall heavy metals concentrations, in reality the samples acquired for this testing are often acquired upstream from the fluoride insertion point, thereby excluding the fluoride contaminants from the tests.

My laboratory testing shows that metals contamination varies considerably from one source of fluoride to the next. For example, while 988 ppb of lead was found in the sodium fluoride from one source, another source showed as little as 53 ppb. But that low-lead source contained over 1,400 ppb of uranium, a potentially concerning figure considering the amount of lingering radioactive uranium still found on the planet thanks to decades of atomic weapons testing. (The most abundant forms of uranium are non-radioactive, of course.)

The industrial heavy metal tungsten, which I have confirmed exists in imported rice protein products, was also found in two out of the six samples tested (33 1/3rd percent). This indicates a very high likelihood that people who are drinking fluoridated water from municipal water supplies may also be drinking tungsten (which has been linked to increased stroke risk at high concentrations).

Why fluoride advocates are forced to lie about what’s really in the fluoride

Fluoride advocates have always used dishonest language to try to deceive the public about fluoride. I remember seeing an advertisement from a pro-fluoride city which claimed, “Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral. Water fluoridation simply restores the natural level of that mineral in the water to protect public health.” Such a claim, we all know, is blatantly false in both its literal wording and its implied claim.

For starters, just because an element is “naturally occurring” does not make it healthy. Arsenic is also a naturally-occurring mineral in many water wells, but arsenic causes cancer and death. If the argument of fluoride proponents is that all “naturally-occurring minerals” should be “restored” to public water supplies, then by their logic we should also be dumping arsenic into the city water.

Secondly, sodium fluoride imported from China’s industrial chemical factories is not at all the same as a fluoride mineral found in groundwater. There are many different chemical compounds which contain fluorine elements in various configurations. Some are far more toxic than others, and all of them are, by default, labeled “fluoride” for purposes of municipal water fluoridation. This dishonest labeling is of course entirely intentional.

Thirdly, fluoride contamination of water wells around the globe is a very large and widespread problem. This is what gives rise to the epidemic of dental fluorosis, affecting tens of millions of children across the globe. Just because fluoride is found in some wells doesn’t mean it should be added to all other water supplies. The idea is ludicrous, and anyone who argues such an invalid point only admits they are irrational or unintelligent to begin with.

When they push “fluoride,” they don’t tell you about the toxic heavy metals you’re also drinking

The other dirty little secret of the fluoridation industry, we now know for certain, is that when fluoride proponents say children need to drink “fluoride,” they never mention the lead, tungsten, uranium, aluminum, strontium and other elements found in common fluoridation chemicals.

What is the public health impact of millions of children around the world drinking trace levels of lead with fluoride? It can’t be good: lead is well known to damage children’s IQs and impair learning. Even though the levels of lead in public water caused by contaminated fluoride are likely to be very small, they still contribute to other sources of lead exposure such as lead alloys in brass pipe fittings — which are still common in residential plumbing.

Important questions about fluoride and public health

Here are several crucial questions for us all to consider:

1) If water fluoridation is supposed to be about protecting public health, then shouldn’t fluoride be free from toxic heavy metals?

2) Why don’t cities which are engaged in water fluoridation test their raw materials for heavy metals and publicly share the results with residents?

3) Why isn’t there a national law requiring purity minimums for fluoride added to public water supplies?

4) If all the doctors and dentists who promote fluoride claim to be protecting public health, why have NONE of them ever tested fluoride for heavy metals contamination?

6) What are the ethical implications of mandating public consumption of a substance known to be contaminated with toxic heavy metals? Doesn’t making fluoride mandatory in the water supply also mean heavy metals consumption also becomes mandatory when the fluoride is contaminated?

Don’t expect anyone from the mainstream media to answer any of these questions, however. They’re still pretending fluoride is good for you!

See also:



Washington Judges Set to Hear Case on Water Fluoridation

Submitted by  on January 5, 2013 – 7:42 pmOne Comment

08af87190ebe24ffe978720b8f74c19dThis Monday three appeals court justices in Tacoma, Washington will hear cases for and against fluoridation of the public water supply.

Those in opposition to water fluoridation point out that those in support claim fluoridated water is promoted as tooth decay prevention, thus fluoride should be recognized as a drug, (any substance used with intent to treat or prevent disease) and protected drug laws should apply. At this time the government does not consider it a drug.

As more citizens begin to question the safety of fluoridated water, the EPA has had to recently admit that the amount in the water supply is dangerous to children. A Harvard study recently linked fluoride to lower IQ’s but was quickly changed to say that “IQ’s were only lowered outside the United States.” The West Virginia University Rural Health Research Center recently reported that U.S. children in urban areas, with a higher exposure to fluoridated dental care and water, have just as many cavities as less fluoride-exposed rural children. A study by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis, showed a massive cancer increase in areas who received water fluoridation.

Many countries like Sweden, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands have discontinued water fluoridation and several areas within the United States are following suit. A recent hidden camera video inside a water treatment facility has pushed the anti-fluoridation movement even further with its attempts to remove the substance from the water. Just last year citizens in Wichita, Kansasand Pulaski, New York joined the more than 130 communities across the country to ban water fluoridation.

Whether you are for or against water fluoridation, you can attend the hearing by visiting yes4cleanwater.org to find out more.




here below is some new current information that just showed up!


New post on LeRoyMoore’s Blog

Plutonium in public water that contains fluoride

by leroymoore

The following paragraphs and references I quote word for word from a piece of paper I uncovered in my file. The exact source for this passage is unknown to me. I’d be grateful if someone out there could identify the sourse so I can give credit where credit is due. I quote the passage and pass it along because of its significance.  Please note that the Johnson mentioned is Carl Johnson, MD, for several years the chief public health officer for Jefferson County where Rocky Flats is located,

“Johnson discovered from work done elsewhere that ‘plutonium is virtually 100 percent soluble in Denver area drinking water because of the presence of carbonate and fluoride in the water.’ (1) Appreciable amounts of plutonium were found in Denver drinking water as late as 1972, with lesser concentrations thereafter. Plutonium in water that has been chlorinated is readily absorbed into the gastrointestinal tract of children.

“One of the studies regarding plutonium solubility that Johnson cites was done by J. M. Cleveland,(2) whose authoritative The Chemistry of Plutonium (NY: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1970, was written when he was the chief plutonium specialist at Rocky Flats.

“The multi-year Actinide Migration Evaluation conducted as part of the Rocky Flats cleanup concluded that plutonium in the Rocky Flats environment was unlikely to become soluble. These studies did not consider plutonium in water containing fluoride, carbonate, or chlorine.(3)”


1. Johnson, “Some Studies of Low-Level Radiation and Cancer in the United States,” presented at the University of Basel, June9, 1987; notes 25 and 27-30. See also Johnson, “Contamination of municipal water supplies in the Denver metropolotan area by the Rocky Flats plutonium plant,” presented at the 146th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, January 4, 1980.

2. Cleveland et al., “Plutonium speciation in water from Mono Lke, California,” Science, 222 (12-23-83): 1323-1325.

3. Kaiser-Hill Company, Report on Soil Erosion and Surface Watyer Sediment Transport Modeling for the Actinide Migration Evaluations at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (00-RF-01823) (DOE-00-o3258) August 2000. See also “Approved Modifications to the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (DOE, EPA, CDPHE, June 9, 2003), Response to Comments, pp. 67-74.

leroymoore | November 6, 2012 at 3:34 am | Categories: EnvironmentPlutoniumPublic HealthRocky Flats | URL:http://wp.me/pNCL4-7I





New post from Face Book page:
Fluorosilicic acid (aka Sodium Fluoride) is being added to our water around the US. The cons outweigh the “supposed” pro’s. Is it worth the pro’s? You decide for yourself.

This all began in the 1930’s and 40’s, the aluminum and phosphate manufacturers were stockpiling Industrial Fluorosilicic acid, which was a byproduct of their operations. The growing accumulation of this waste was contaminating local water, harming livestock and crops near aluminum plants.

Looking for a profitable way to dispose of this toxic substance, they began to market it as rat poison. It is effective for killing rats, but that did not sell enough of it. Using some research that suggested it hardened teeth, the aluminum executives and their allies in business and government worked hard to convince the dental association to endorse sodium fluoride for public consumption through the water supply.

Fluoride makers change fluorosilicic acid from its water-based solution into powdered derivatives called sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride, which suppliers add to drinking water.

This gave them a way to get rid of poisonous waste at a profit.

Water fluoridation began in the USA in 1945. As a safe and cost effective way to prevent tooth decay. Today more than 195 million Americans are on fluoridated water systems thats 72% of the US. But careful statistical studies by John Yiamiyanous Phd., biochemist and specialist in epidemiology (the study of population health statistics) showed no appreciable health benefit to teeth from fluoridation of water. On the other hand there has been a clear increase in cancer in cities where the water is fluoridated. Too much Fluorosilicic acid also makes the teeth and bones brittle.

Teeth can become mottled, and eventually more likely to crumble. Further, fluoride interferes with the uptake of iodine in the system, contributing to thyroid problems. Children have been seriously harmed or even died from swallowing fluoridated toothpaste or mouthwash not to mention is also harms the enamel on the teeth of young children.
Below I will list some pros and cons of Fluorosilicic acid in our local water system.

1. It is thought that adding Sodium Fluoride helps strengthen the enamel of teeth, preventing tooth decay, cavities and tooth loss. Which none of these have been scientifically proven.

1. Sodium Fluoride taken in doses of 10-20 parts per million may cause bone weakness.

2. Does not reduce cavaties and has been linked to thyroid disease and bone cancer in young males.

3. Fluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of fertilizer, aluminum, and phosphate production.

4. Causes fluorosis, Dental flourosis is a developmental disturbance of dental enamel caused by excessive exposure to high concentraions of sodium fluoride during tooth development.

5. Increases the chance of bone cancer, hyper and depressed activities and bone fluorosis which cause the bone density to reduce.

6. Though Sodium fluoride stimulates the oxygen formation and consumptions in white blood cells, it hinders this process once the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.

7. Sodium fluoride decreases the amount of energy reserves in the white blood cell and it also decreses it’s ability to properly destroy foreign agents.

8. It also confuses the bodys immune system and thus, it starts to attack it’s own tissues and increase the chance of tumor growth rate in cancer affected individuals.

Dr. Dean Burk once co-founder of the US National Cancer Institute has conclusive evidence linking fluoridated water to increase of cancer in consumers. He conducted and completed a study comparing the ten largest US flouridated cities to the 10 largest non fluoridated cities and concluded that sodium fluoride should not be in our water. Citing cancer increase and death as one of his top reasons, also stating sodium fluoride should be banned by federal law quoting the Delaney Amendment Clause Armed with studies that conclude fluoride can cause osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer, concerned groups asked the state to list it as a carcinogen.


The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment debated whether fluoride belongs on

the Proposition 65 list.California voters passed Proposition 65 in 1986. It’s a warning label that the business you’re visiting or product you’re using could expose you to cancer-causing substances.



Letters to the editor, Oct. 7, 2012

The New Mexican
Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2012Truth about fluoride

I praise the five city councilors sponsoring a bill to cease fluoridating our water. Patti Bushee, Carmichael Dominguez, Ron Trujillo, Chris Rivera and Bill Dimas know about Harvard’s scientific study recently published that too much fluoride lowers human IQ.

Educators now understand that fluoride contributes to dumbed-down children. “Pseudoscience” from false data and hidden reports convinced an unsuspecting public in the 1940s and ’50s that “fluoride is good for you.” We believed that drinking fluoride and using fluoride toothpaste prevented tooth decay. We’re smarter now.

Drinking, breathing and eating fluoride, a toxic, industrial waste product, is not good for you and does not prevent tooth decay. Eating natural sugar, good oral hygiene, eating right and wise parenting prevent tooth decay. Drinking fluoride throughout a lifetime causes devastating side effects: calcifies soft tissues, muscles, organs, glands and brains. Deposits in our bones: skeletal fluorosis. The new breed of scientists tells the truth about fluoride. Thank you, councilors.

Helen Oates

Santa Fe