Is Putting Fluoride in Our Water Rational?



Comments (26)

Comment Feed

my choice is ignored

At the end of the day, I don't care if this stuff will turn my teeth to gold and my urine to silver...I have a right to decide NOT to put it into my body and those who want it in their body can get the stuff easily. When there is an agenda to force everyone to indulge, you know it has nothing to do with health benefits. Why are they so interested in 'saving' our teeth anyway? Dentists make lots of money fixing dental cavities, so doesn't anybody wonder why they are trying to harm their own businesses? The point is that they make thousands more times more money fixing the damaged caused by the dental fluorosis and they want it to continue. Think people! Think!

GraceJoubarne 191 days ago

Principal Dental Officer, Dr. John Colquhoun DDS Please read article from a DDS who being a staunch proponent of fluoride, they asked him to make fluoridation the subject of a world study tour in 1980. The above link tells his findings.

jeri soyer more than 1 year ago


Fluoridationists who blog here about how 'great' eating/drinking fluoride is for teeth, and how 'harmless' it is believed to be, and how 'idiotic' anyone is who opposes whole body fluoridation, are contaminating this otherwise decent article by Dr. Winter. Fluoridationists are lucky that 1) so much money is spent on fluoridation equipment that electronically meters the toxic industrial materials to avoid acute poisoning such as occurred in Hooper Bay AK (see Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 free online for details), and 2) lucky that bone is a huge repository for the ingested fluoride contaminant which helps protect consumers so that only chronic poisoning occurs, and 3) lucky that most people in a fluoridated city have normal kidneys that eliminate half of the ingested fluoride from the bloodstream. Pity those on kidney dialysis who have been killed slowly from using fluoridated water in kidney dialysis wards which forced the FDA to rule that fluoridated water cannot be used in dialysis equipment. The FDA also correctly ruled that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient, its addition into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug (even sodium fluoride tablets have never been approved by the FDA for ingestion and are only allowed by prescription and only in regions that do not have fluoridated water), and banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended to be ingested by pregnant women in the U.S. Pity also that all consumers after lifelong consumption of 'optimally' fluoridated water accumulate fluoride as a contaminant of bone to thousands of mg/kg, concentrations higher than in fluoridated toothpaste, where it does not belong and weakens bone causing formation of bone of poor quality (NRC, 2006). The idea that the NRC cannot make statements relevant to 1 ppm fluoride water used in 'fluoridation' is absurd since many studies in the NRC Report contained data from use of such water. Many people experience bone pain at only 1,500 mg/kg fluoride in bone which is typically achieved in a fluoridate city in 15 years. As doctors are mystified why incidence of arthritis, hip fractures in the elderly, and bone replacement surgeries are skyrocketing, the sweeping broad claim without proof that somehow fluoridated bone, which upon breaking takes longer to heal than normal bone, is uninvolved in all this is laughable. Even the visible fluoride systemic poisoning noted in 41% of U.S. teens where dental enamel hypoplasia fluorosis is permanent is justified by fluoridationists because of the myth that eating fluoride affects dental caries. The full studies by Ziegelbecker; and Teotia; and Yiamouyiannis; and Sutton indicate that fluoridation does not affect caries and that all 'trials' that were assumed to demonstrate this were biased and not controlled as confirmed in the recent Cochrane review discussed in Newsweek. The idea that all these facts are somehow "nonsense" has nothing to do with controlled scientific study.

Dr. Richard Sauerheber more than 1 year ago

Same Anti-F Distortions of Facts

Why should anyone believe the fear-laced, distorted 'evidence' presented by anti-F activists over the conclusions reached by the overwhelming majority of experts who have carefully examined the entire body of evidence (thousands of studies over 70 years) that drinking optimally fluoridated water is safe and effective at reducing dental decay in a community?

It is extremely easy for fluoridation opponents (FOs) to exaggerate, distort and misrepresent conclusions of legitimate studies (like the 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water and the 2015 The Cochrane Review of Community Water Fluoridation) to give the false impression they found optimally fluoridated water ineffective and harmful to health. Both reviews actually recognized the benefits of fluoridation, and the only reported consequences of exposure to water with natural fluoride levels nearly five times greater than the optimal level (0.7 ppm) were a risk of dental/skeletal fluorosis and possible bone fracture.

It is extremely easy for FOs to dig through thousands of studies from 70 years of research, ignore the majority which demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation, cherry-pick the few poor &/or biased papers that fit their agenda or select studies that report harm from excessive exposure to fluoride ions.
Examples of this “selective reporting” include the so-called Choi, et all Harvard IQ review, the Malin, Till ADHD study or the Peckham, et al. hypothyroidism study. These and others like them have all been extensively evaluated and severely criticized by experts in the field.

You mention a “controlled scientific study”. See my response to D. Germouse.

If the anti-F propaganda is legitimate, why has this outlier group been completely unable to change the scientific consensus?

If there is any truth to the alleged claims of harm and ineffectiveness why do over 100 international and national scientific health organizations and their representatives continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation for preventing dental decay? These organizations include The World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association. (the complete list is elsewhere in these comments)

Why are there no major scientific or health organizations that support the anti-F beliefs?

Think about it

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

Political machination in U.S.

See 2016 letter signed by consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, water expert Robert Bowcock, and"elite" whistleblower lawyer Michael Kohn to U.S. governors. Note the citations and selected quotes, too.

KSpencer more than 1 year ago

More of the same propaganda

Kspencer –

You simply link to an un-reviewed opinion piece with essentially the same false and exaggerated content as found in this original article and on anti-F websites, videos and literature.

The 4 questions I asked elsewhere remain unanswered by fluoridation opponents.

Since the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports fluoridation and over 100 major international and national scientific and health organizations (and their thousands of representatives) recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation for preventing dental decay, why should anyone believe the fear-laced, edited and distorted anti-F propaganda?

Why do those 100+ organizations recognize the benefits of fluoridation?

Why do no reputable scientific or health organizations agree with the anti-F beliefs?

Why have anti-F activists been unable to provide evidence to change the scientific consensus in over 70 years of desperate, unsuccessful attempts to find legitimate evidence that drinking optimally fluoridated water is ineffective at reducing dental decay or increases health risks?

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago


You cite endorsements as if they were science. I cite a letter signed by experts with dozens of scientific citations attached and you claim its an opinion piece from an "anti-site" .....

As to why no change of heart on the part of those organizations who endorsed fluoridation in the 1950s, here are just a few quotes through the years on that topic:

“When I tried to raise the issue with the Australian Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and in integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers….” - Dr. Andrews Harms, BDS, former fluoridation promoter and former President of the South Australian division of the Australian Dental Association (2013)

”In all science there is a strong 'herd instinct', and interactions occur largely within these herds. They may argue vigorously about details, but they maintain solidarity, or close ranks, when challenged by other herds or individuals. The herd instinct is strengthened greatly if those making funding decisions are members of that herd. Strays do not get funded, and their work, no matter how innovative, is neglected as the herd rumbles on. Herd members will change their views rapidly, however, if the herd leaders change direction. By contrast, if the innovators are not part of the herd it becomes very difficult, or impossible, for them to change the herd's direction.” - Dr. Gordon MacDonald, environmental scientist (2003)

"The level of fluoride the government allows the public is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports. People can be harmed simply by drinking water." - Dr. Robert Carton, EPA Scientist (1998)

"Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide ... it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses. It is a scientific disgrace that a well organized lobby of the American Dental Association ever managed to stampede American legislators into ignoring the highly technical but very cogent objection to fluoridation." - James B. Patrick, Ph.D., National Institute of Health statement to Congress (1982)

“Fluoridation is not a Communist plot: It is an attempt by industry to camouflage their deadliest pollutant. With government officials and Madison Avenue advertisers beating the drums, the fluoridation empire is like a castle built on quicksand.” - Gladys Caldwell, author of “Fluoridation and Truth Decay” (1974)

“No school, college or independent medical research institution dares to be critical of fluoridation because they receive grants from the U.S. Public Health Service. Likewise, no big food, beverage or drug company will dare speak critically of fluoride because they are under the supervision of the FDA, a branch of the USPHS. One brewery official told me that their own research indicated grave questions about fluoridation, but th

KSpencer more than 1 year ago

Citations cont.

The citations about fluoridation increasing lead in water should be of particular interest given the current news cycle, but the recent inflammation studies should also appeal to many.

Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology. 2000 Dec;21(6):1091-100. 

Coplan MJ, Patch SC, Masters RD, Bachman MS. Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1032-42.

Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1023-31. Epub 2007 Jun 30.

Sawan RM, et al. Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from lead-exposed rats. Toxicology. 2010 Apr 30;271(1-2):21-6. Epub 2010 Feb 25.

Fluoride: a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? Follin-Arbelet B, Moum B. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016 May 19:1-6.

Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages. I. Gutowskaa et al. Toxicology in Vitro. Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2015, Pages 1661–1668.

KSpencer more than 1 year ago

Citations cont.

Word count seems to be limiting me in my citations.... but here is one from May 2016 out of Scandinavia that I found very compelling.

Fluoride: a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? Follin-Arbelet B, Moum B. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016 May 19:1-6.

In the US, Canada, Australia and Wales, the fluoridation of municipal water preceded a marked increase in incidence of IBD. Similar patterns of increased IBD have been noted in those living in an area with naturally high fluoride and in workers exposed to fluoride on the job. There seems to be a genetic component. People who brush their teeth frequently are also at higher risk of IBD. Animal studies confirm fluoride inflames the bowels

KSpencer more than 1 year ago

Scientific Consensus vs Individual opinion

Dr. Winter's claims of doing his own research remind me of Linus Pauling, the greatest chemist ever, who passionately yet mistakenly believed that Vitamin C would cure the common cold

There are about 53,000 articles in the Natl Library of Med's Pubmed database. The Natl Research Council spent about $4,000,000 in 2006 considering the safety of fluoride in drinking water about 7x higher than the optimal target amount. Dr. Winter could not have possibly done what he claims.

Systematic Reviews bring sufficient funding, expertise and time to reviewing all the available data. Scientific consensus is properly based on groups of peer recognized legitimate experts, not professors from random small colleges, The collective wisdom of North America's pediatricians, family physicians, dentists, internal Med specialists and public health scientists is that fluoridation is important, prevents cavities and is safe

Collected by the Quebec Natl Inst of Public Health this list of national and international organizations recognize the health benefits of fluoridation for preventing cavities. (truncated @ 3000 chars)

Acad of Dentistry InterNatl
Acad of General Dentistry
Acad for Sports Dentistry
Alzheimer's Assn
America's Health Insurance Plans
Am Acad of Family Physicians
Am Acad of Nurse Practitioners
Am Acad of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology
Am Acad of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Am Acad of Pediatrics
Am Acad of Pediatric Dentistry
Am Acad of Periodontology
Am Acad of Physician Assistants
Am Assn for Community Dental Programs
Am Assn for Dental Research
Am Assn for Health Education
Am Assn for the Advancement of Science
Institut Natl de santé publique du Québec 37
Am Assn of Endodontists
Am Assn of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons
Am Assn of Orthodontists
Am Assn of Public Health Dentistry
Am Assn of Women Dentists
Am Cancer Society
Am College of Dentists
Am College of Physicians-Am Society of Internal Med
Am College of Preventive Med
Am College of Prosthodontists
Am Council on Science & Health
Am Dental Assistants Assn
Am Dental Assn
Am Dental Education Assn
Am Dental Hygienists' Assn
Am Dietetic Assn
Am Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Orgs
Am Hospital Assn
Am Inst of Nutrition
Am Legislative Exchange Council
Am Medical Assn
Am Nurses Assn
Am Osteopathic Assn
Am Pharmaceutical Assn
Am Pharmacists Assn
Am Public Health Assn
Am School Health Assn
Am Society for Clinical Nutrition
Am Society for Nutritional Sciences
Am Student Dental Assn
Am Veterinary Medical Assn
Am Water Works Assn
Assn for Academic Health Centers
Assn of Am Medical Colleges
Assn of Clinicians for the Underserved
Assn of Maternal & Child Health Programs
Assn of State & Territorial Dental Directors
Assn of State & Territorial Health Officials
Assn of State & Territorial Public Health
Australian Natl Health & Medical Research Council NHMRC
Australian Dental Assn ADA
Australian Health Ministers' Conference
Australia New South Wales Department of Health
Nutrition Directors
British Dental

Billy Budd more than 1 year ago

Fluoride accumulation

I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.

Dan Germouse more than 1 year ago

Chloroform accumulation

I have asked many fluoridation opponents (FOs) how much exposure to chloroform and other disinfection byproducts they think is safe? So far, not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.

In addition to disinfection byproducts found in disinfected water, a variety of toxic drinking water treatment chemicals can be added to treat drinking water. These include ammonium sulfate, calcium hydroxide, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid. These chemicals that are dumped into the water are not pharmacy-grade.

Fluoridation opponents (FOs) don't seem to understand that all water treatment chemicals are poisonous in the forms added to water – it would not be advisable to drink a glass of sodium hypochlorite (bleach), sodium hydroxide (drain cleaner), hydrochloric acid or hydrofluorosilicate or any of the other chemicals routinely used to treat water. The process of disinfection also creates toxic disinfection byproducts.

Everyone who drinks public water will ingest a number of contaminants that would cause health issues if levels of exposure were high enough. Despite claims by FOs, scientists and government officials recognize this fact, and design regulations to keep contaminant levels below harmful levels.

Does anyone who dislikes ingesting any or all of these added chemicals - or the disinfection byproducts that are created - have the right to demand the treatment practice be halted because of their self-inflicted fears?

Of course not, but they are free to choose to take measures to remove any chemicals they decide they dislike.

FOs selectively focus on a specific contaminant for which they have developed a self-inflicted paranoia – fluoride ions. They completely ignore the fact that unlike other contaminants (the disinfection byproducts, for example) fluoride ions occur naturally in most drinking water. The regulations for fluoridating water set levels that maximize benefits to dental health while minimizing the risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis. There is no evidence that optimally fluoridated water causes severe – or even moderate dental fluorosis or skeletal fluorosis – or any of the other health problems alleged by FOs.

The overwhelming majority of evidence from over 70 years of research had definitively shown fluoridation to be a safe and effective public health policy - - - Just as the other water treatment methods have been shown to be safe and effective.

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

Fluoride: dangerous to health

But the truth is spreading and people everywhere are learning that fluoride in drinking water is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.

Consider this:
In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
In Europe, 3%.
In the world, 5%.
In Canada, now 37% --- down from 45% in six years.
Over 200 communities have voted it out in the last five years.

After over 70 years of fluoridation in the US, over 90% of children have dental decay. What a dismal record.

But even worse, Fluoride causes lowered IQ and ADHD in children.
The EPA has now classified fluoride as a neurotoxin (nerve and brain poison). A top medical journal “LANCET” in 2014 also reported that fluoride is a neurotoxin in the same category as mercury, lead and arsenic.

Fluoridation causes enamel damage (dental fluorosis) in 41% of all children (CDC data) and has also been shown to lower IQ in children with 50 research studies. Now it has been proven to cause ADHD. (Environmental Health; by Malin & Till, 2015).

James Reeves more than 1 year ago

Fluoride: beneficial to health

Your claims are unproven and false. If they were legitimate, the scientific consensus would change and fluoridation would not be a legitimate public health measure.

Rather than copying/pasting exactly the same falsehoods try to answer the 4 questions I asked and explain to those reading these comments why anyone should accept the fear-laden anti-F propaganda as legitimate over the conclusions held by major health and scientific organizations and their members - experts in the fields of science, health and dental care?

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

Comments & Questions (4)


Logically, if the anti-F propaganda was accurate why would the members not question these statement (or initiate a mutiny) if they had any concerns? Read statements from the other organizations that support fluoridation. Search on, “What do water fluoridation supporters say?” to read comments from fluoridation supporters.

The logical answer for the questions above is that the FOs have developed a severe self-inflicted paranoia against fluoridation. They dig through the thousands of research papers from over 70 years to find poor quality studies that support their agenda and distort the conclusions of legitimate research so it appears to verify their fears.

FOs fabricate unsupported, exaggerated headlines to emphasize fear (like fluoride reduces IQ, causes cancer, is a poisonous illegal medication, ad nauseam). They then edit and package this false and misleading “evidence” on websites and in videos and direct the public to this carefully staged illusion in an attempt to scare them into denouncing a safe and beneficial public health program.

The stronger one’s biases/fears and/or the weaker one’s knowledge of science, the easier it is to dig through the massive body of evidence and find poor quality studies that can be made to appear as though they support those biases/fears.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of responsible scientists and health professionals do not agree with the anti-F interpretation of evidence should be an extremely strong warning signal to everyone that it is the anti-F agenda that is dangerous to public health.

All of alleged claims are irrelevant if you can’t explain why FOs have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus in over 70 years of desperate fear-mongering. That inability simply means that everything you use to promote your biased agenda is not accurate or relevant as can be discovered by investigation of the research outside the confines of anti-F sites and videos.


Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

Religious zealotry

You don't understand the difference between religion and science. Fluoridationism is violent religious zealotry; there is nothing scientific about it.

Dan Germouse more than 1 year ago

Religious zealotry - really??

Dan Germouse - what exactly do you call the thousands of research studies on fluoridation that can be found on Religious texts?

Just answer questions 1 - 4 in my Comments & Questions (3) section.

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

Hot air

I have asked you and your fellow fanatics many, many times to cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that taking fluoridated water is anything but harmful and useless, and you can never produce anything. We all know why that is. You are just blowing hot air.

Dan Germouse more than 1 year ago

Hot air???

Below are a few recent studies that describe the benefits and safety of fluoridation you seem to have missed.

Now, before you get all hot and bothered because these don’t fit your definition of “original research studies”, I will ask that, in addition to answering my original questions, you describe exactly what you mean by an “original research study”. As soon as you provide that detailed description it will become obvious you understand nothing about conducting research.

These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic.
Benefits for disadvantaged citizens:
Strong evidence supports the safety and efficacy of CWF. The benefits are most pronounced for low SES groups.
This study suggests that water fluoridation provides a net health gain for older Irish adults, though the effects of fluoridation warrant further investigation.
This study supported that water fluoridation could not only lead to a lower prevalence of dental caries, but also help to reduce the effect of SES inequalities on oral health.
There has been considerable improvement in child dental health in the NPA over the past 6-7 years. In light of continued poor diet and oral hygiene, water fluoridation is the most likely explanation.
Water fluoridation is an effective safe means of preventing dental caries, reaching all populations, irrespective of the presence of other dental services.
Not only is community water fluoridation safe and effective, it is also cost saving, and it is the least expensive way to deliver the benefits of fluoride to all residents of a community.
Water fluoridation was confirmed as an evidence based intervention which has halved the amount of tooth decay in 5- and 12-year-old children..
Water fluoridation reduces dental caries experience more in materially deprived wards than in affluent wards and the introduction of water fluoridation would substantially reduce inequalities in dental health.

Fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated:

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

More hot air

All you are doing is confirming yet again that you have no understanding of the concept of quality of evidence. Stop wasting people's time.

Dan Germouse more than 1 year ago

You have no Clue!

Dan Germouse -

Those references and the thousands of other research papers from over 70 years that demonstrate fluoridation as safe and effective are quite valid.

Since you apparently do not agree, I asked you to describe specifically what study design you would accept as "quality evidence" precisely because you appear to have no clue about what it would take to conduct a study that would provide the evidence you are trying to obtain.

Go ahead - if you are unable to outline details of a study you would find acceptable everyone can only conclude that you are copying/pasting content from anti-F sites that you don't understand.

Once you provide a detailed plan of how the study should be conducted, then there will be something to discuss - otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

You have about 3,000 characters to describe your study. Go for it.

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

Comments & Questions (3)


I have several questions, Dr. Winter:

1) How do you explain the fact that over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their thousands of members – experts in their fields) -- as well as six Surgeons General since 1982 -- recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay and resulting health problems. These organizations include The WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.
Search on "Fluoridation facts compendium" to read the list from the ADA.

2) How do you explain the fact that there are no recognized scientific and health organizations that support your self-inflicted, anti-F beliefs? There are only a few independent, outliers who have developed an irrational fear of fluoride ions and who have gone to extraordinary lengths for over 70 years to try and change the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

3) Since FOs disagree with the scientific consensus on fluoridation, provide a workable process to replace scientific consensus for analyzing and evaluating a body of scientific evidence, determining scientific reliability and drawing legitimate conclusions.

4) Why should anyone accept as true the edited and distorted fear-laced comments of FOs over the massive body of evidence that supports fluoridation as safe and effective?

If ANY of the anti-F claims about the dangers and ineffectiveness of fluoride ions on reducing dental decay were valid, fluoridation would, indeed, be completely reprehensible. No sane, competent scientist or medical professional with a conscious would endorse an ineffective, blatantly dangerous practice.

If, as alleged by FOs, optimally fluoridated water caused significant harm to children, why would the American Academy of Pediatrics (with over 62,000 members) – an organization committed to protecting and improving the health of children – make this statement, “Water fluoridation continues to be one of the most important tools in our toolbox to prevent tooth decay in children and adults.”?

If as alleged by FOs, optimally fluoridated water caused cancer, why would the American Cancer Society state, “The general consensus among the reviews done to date is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer. ,,, More recent studies have compared the rates of osteosarcoma in areas with higher versus lower levels of fluoridation in Great Britain, Ireland, and the United States. These studies have not found an increased risk of osteosarcoma in areas of water fluoridation.”

To be continued…

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

Comments & Questions (2)


Dr. Winter – You claim the 2006 NRC report of fluoride “documented numerous negative effects of fluoride on many organ systems…” Yet you fail to mention several key facts:

~~>The 2006 NRC Review did not apply to optimally fluoridated water at all. From the Committee’s Task section, “The committee was charged to review toxicological, epidemiologic, and clinical data on fluoride—particularly data published since the NRC’s previous (1993) report—and exposure data on orally ingested fluoride from drinking water and other sources. On the basis of its review, the committee was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effects.”

~~> The only negative effects found by the 12 member committee of exposure to 4 ppm (and only the reasons for suggesting lowering the MCL) were an increased risk of moderate to severe dental fluorosis bone fracture and possibly skeletal fluorosis. That is over five times the optimal fluoridation level. There were NO other negative health effects listed.

~~> There was no suggestion to lower the Secondary Maximum Contaminant level below 2.0 ppm (nearly three times the optimal level for fluoridation).

~~> The review did not link any of the negative health effects you listed (or any others) with drinking optimally fluoridated water.

The American Cancer Society does not list drinking optimally fluoridated water as a cause of ANY cancers. I suspect those members have a fairly good grasp on the evidence.

To be continued…

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

Comments & Questions (1)

Dr. Winter – You wrote 2,216 words basically restating the propaganda on fluoridealert. You provide a link to a video, “Our Daily Dose” that shows parents and children engaging in behaviors that are far riskier than drinking optimally fluoridated water and completely ignoring the fact that fluoridation has been shown to reduce dental decay in these children (and parents) for over 70 years.

You claim, “As a social scientist, it’s unclear to me what their motivations are, given the research that exists, which I have carefully examined.” However, the majority of scientific and health experts have also carefully examined the complete body of research that exists and have come to a completely different conclusion than you and other fluoridation opponents (FOs).

You bring up the WHO warning about excessive exposure to fluoride ions (which no reasonable health professionals dispute), but you completely ignore these WHO statements:
“Many communities worldwide lack sufficient natural fluoride in their drinking water to prevent caries. Because of the powerful benefits of the right amount of fluoride, water fluoridation programmes have been established in many countries since the 1930s when its ability to reduce dental caries was first recognized.”
“Water fluoridation in low fluoride-containing water supplies helps to maintain optimal dental tissue development and dental enamel resistance against caries attack during the entire life span. Fluoride in drinking water acts mainly through its retention in dental plaque and saliva. Frequent consumption of drinking water and products made with fluoridated water maintain intra-oral fluoride levels. People of all ages, including the elderly, benefit from community water fluoridation. For example, the prevalence of caries on root surfaces of teeth is inversely related to fluoride levels in the drinking water: in other words, within the non-toxic range for fluoride, the higher the level of fluoride in water, the lower the level of dental decay. This finding is important because with increasing tooth retention and an aging population, the prevalence of dental root caries would be expected to be higher in the absence of fluoridation.”
“Fluoridation of water supplies, where possible, is the most effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay. “

To be continued…

Randy Johnson more than 1 year ago

An excellent article on the ineffectiveness and helth dangers of fluoride.

Thanks to Dr. Winter for an accurate report on fluoride. Current science shows that the 70 year old practice of forcing every one to consume this toxic chemical is unethical and should be illegal.

A company CEO would be arrested if they dump their toxic waste fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid, into the environment. Yet it is sold in tankers to communities where 99% is dumped into the drain, and thus into the environment. It is profitable to the companies but an insane scheme. If you doubt this, just ask any civil engineer or any water manager.

Jsmes Reeves more than 1 year ago

you sound mental

See subject line.

Every person in Canada more than 1 year ago

Built with Metro Publisher™