- Albert Schatz, PhD Nobel Laureate for discovering streptomycin, quoted in Sutton's Fluoridation: The Greatest Fraud
Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba, and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).
2. Natural. Fluoride is already present in all water sources, even the oceans. Water fluoridation is simply the adjustment of fluoride that occurs naturally in water to a recommended level for preventing tooth decay.
The level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is up to 200 times higher than normally found in mothers' milk (0.005 -- 0.01 ppm) (Ekstrand 1981; Institute of Medicine 1997). There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (this is an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).
3. Similar to fortifying other foods and beverages. Water that has been fluoridated is similar to fortifying salt with iodine, milk with vitamin D, orange juice with calcium, and bread with folic acid.
Absolutely ridiculous! No, fluoride is not similar to fortifying food with nutritional nutrients. Vitamin D, calcium, folic acid, and iodine are all considered nutrients necessary for health. Fluoride does not have that status. It is considered a toxic chemical used for rat poison. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.
Also, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993) and other researchers (Juncos & Donadio 1972; Marier & Rose 1977; and Johnson 1979), certain subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects; these include the elderly, diabetics, and people with poor kidney function and those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies, and protein-poor diets) (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998). Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who are precisely the people being targeted by new fluoridation programs.
4. Prevents dental disease. It is the most efficient way to prevent one of the most common childhood diseases -- dental decay. An estimated 51 million school hours are lost each year due to dental-related illness.
Gift, H.C. "Oral Health Outcomes Research: Challenges and Opportunities." In Slade, G.D., ed., Measuring Oral Health and Quality of Life. Chapel Hill, NC: Department of Dental Ecology, University of North Carolina 1997;25-46.
No. There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) that have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water-fluoride levels. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002; and Ekanayake 2002).
5. Protects all ages against cavities. Studies show that community water fluoridation prevents at least 25 percent of tooth decay in children and adults, even in an era with widespread availability of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride toothpaste.
*Griffin S.O., et al. "Effectiveness of Fluoride in Preventing Caries in Adults." J Dent Res 2007;86(5):410-415.
** Task Force on Community Preventive Services. "Promoting Oral Health: Interventions for Preventing Dental Caries, Oral and Pharyngeal Cancers, and Sports-related Craniofacial Injuries: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services." MMWR 001;50(RR21):1-13. View information at thecommunityguide.org/oral/fluoridation.html and cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5021a1.htm
No, extreme caution with infants and young children as required by the FDA and CDC. Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded:
"The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance" (Locker 1999).
Fluoride toothpaste is required by the FDA and CDC to print on every package: ''Warning: Keep out of the reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional assistance or contact a Poison Control Center immediately.'' The Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration did not back down from the immense commercial pressure to remove the warning because all the scientific studies prove fluoride is dangerous and not an essential nutrient.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
