Should we question the fluoridation of water?

Fluoridation has been with us for nearly 50 years, but the debate over the wisdom of adding trace amounts of a chemical to municipal water supplies to prevent dental cavities never seems to stop.

Paul Connett, a U.S. academic and public-health advocate, is the leading international spokesman for the movement to stop fluoridation. Along with co-writers James Beck and H.S. Micklem, he has just penned a book, The Case Against Fluoride, decrying the practice.

In Canada, British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland have almost no fluoridation. But residents of other provinces served by municipal systems are probably drinking fluoridated water. While fluoridation is common in Canada, the United States and Australia, it’s practically not-existent in Europe and the rest of the world. Health Canada is a strong promoter of fluoridation, as are most dental associations, which say it’s a safe, low-cost way to prevent tooth decay, particularly among cavity-prone children.

But Dr. Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network and professor emeritus of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York, disagrees. For his reasons, read on.

Before you became involved in this issue, you were skeptical that fluoride was harmful and thought critics of the practice were misguided. What changed your mind?

There were two things. The first was that fluoride interfered with hydrogen bonds, which are common in proteins and other important molecules in our bodies. That sent alarm bells ringing through my head. The second was that the level in mothers’ milk was incredibly low. When you see what nature’s take on it is, which is don’t give the baby much fluoride, then I felt this doesn’t make any sense to add it to water.

In the case of fluoridation, the water supply is being used as a drug-delivery mechanism to treat a medical condition. Why is this wrong, in your view?

It violates people’s right to informed consent, which has always been the strongest argument against fluoridation. We’ve never done it with other drugs. Since fluoridation began in 1945, not one other substance has been added to the water to address a health concern. You shouldn’t use the water supply to deliver medication, for obvious reasons. You can’t control the dose. You can’t control who will get it. There is no individual supervision. The whole practice doesn’t make sense from a medical point of view.

Tooth-decay rates have fallen at similar rates in advanced countries around the world, irrespective of whether the jurisdiction fluoridates. What is driving the trend?

One factor is the increasing standard of living. There is a much stronger relationship between falling tooth-decay rates and rising income levels than you’ll ever find with anything else. With higher incomes, you get better diets, you have parents with time to control their children’s diet and to look after their dental hygiene. Although I’m not promoting fluoridated toothpaste, it’s another possibility. Research has found that the benefits from fluoride are from topical applications, and not from ingesting it by swallowing it. Other factors might be the use of more antibiotics or preservatives in food. These might be altering or controlling the bacteria in our mouths that cause decay. But I don’t think anybody is absolutely convinced they know the reason.

Do you brush with a fluoridated toothpaste?

I haven’t brushed with a fluoridated toothpaste for 14 years. My teeth are fine.

The first U.S. fluoridation trial began in the mid-1940s. Would fluoridation pass a modern, drug-style clinical trial or risk assessment?

There is no way on planet Earth that you could get fluoridation through today. It’s only because it’s been an inherited practice and so much credibility is at stake for the medical community that keeps it going.

What are the health dangers from fluoridation?

I think we’re going to pay a huge price. I’m convinced, based on animal studies, clinical trials and epidemiological studies, that drinking fluoridated water for a whole lifetime will increase your risk of arthritis and also increase your risk of hip fractures, which is very serious in the elderly. The reason for these problems is that half the fluoride people ingest is stored in the bone. We may also have a problem with it lowering the IQ of children. There are 23 studies from four countries that have found a possible association between drinking naturally fluoridated water and lower IQ in children.

This interview has been condensed and edited.

---

HE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE

NOW AVAILABLE!
THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE

Order Book from Amazon

A "painstakingly researched exposé of fluoridation's overall ineffectiveness and toxicity... It remains to be seen whether the public-health community will give this landmark work due credit or continue to rubber stamp an outdated policy that, like bloodletting and trepanation, properly belongs on the scrap heap of sham medical interventions."

- BOOKLIST (American Library Association)
Read More Reviews

Interview with Author:
Why Water Shouldn’t Be Fluoridated
Toronto Globe & Mail, October 18, 2010

The Endnotes and Appendices are online with active links to cited papers.

---

Water Fluoridation

One day after Waterloo's October 25, 2010 public referendum vote to end water fluoridation, the close margin of the vote and promises to honour the vote are reiterated.  Water fluoridation will be turned off. – CTV Newscast (2min. 30sec. 26-Oct-10) see video

Robert J. Fleming (Executive Director, WaterlooWatch) and Dr. Harry Hoediono (2010 President Elect, Ontario Dental Association) comment on the Region of Waterloo October 25, 2010 fluoridation referendum results, moments after artificial water fluoridation was voted out by a slim margin. – CTV Newscast (3min. 10sec. 25-Oct-10) see video

As a voter receiving Waterloo's fluoridated water (Waterloo, parts of Kitchener, Elmira, St. Jacobs and other parts of Woolwich Township) you will be asked to vote on this question in the October 25th, 2010 municipal election. "Should the Region of Waterloo fluoridate your municipal water?" Yes? or No? Video created/produced by Phil Shuh of Fluoride Free Waterloo (2min. 38sec. 13-Oct-10) see video

Why add Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFSA) to artificially fluoridate public drinking water? Hydrofluorosilicic Acid contains inorganic silicofluoride/fluorosilicate. It also contains trace amounts of contaminants such as lead, arsenic and mercury. When did lead, arsenic, and mercury become safe to drink over a lifetime, at any concentrations?  Hydrofluorosilicic Acid has yet to be proven safe for systemic ingestion (i.e. swallowing) or even effective at reducing dental caries (i.e. reducing decayed, missing, filled teeth). Why would we ever want to continue dumping these contaminants (i.e. hydrofluorosilicic acid) into our clean, fresh drinking water?

Featuring a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, three scientists from the National Research Council's landmark review on fluoride, as well as dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field, this professionally-produced video presents a powerful indictment of the fluoridation program. The video also includes four special features including Dr. Bill Osmunson's acclaimed statement on fluoride. A great resource for anyone involved in the issue.  (28min. 29sec.)  see video
Courtesy of:  Fluoride Action Network  www.fluoridealert.org

Does swallowing fluoride have any significant benefit?

There is a shift in scientific thinking, which now accepts that swallowing fluoride (systemic ingestion of fluoride) does not make teeth more resistant to tooth decay.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, Assoc. Professor & Head, School of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto (29min. May 2000) see video

Fluoride accumulates in our bodies over a lifetime, as do arsenic and lead. All three are known toxins. All three pose significant health hazards. All three are in hydrofluorosilicic acid.

---

Video:

Expert Issues Warning on Fluoride

---

PROFESSIONALS' STATEMENT: 3,193 Medical, Scientific, and Environmental Professionals Sign Statement Calling for End to Fluoridation Worldwide

November 10, 2010: U.S. signers (A-M - N-Z) and International signer:

• 518 Nurses (RN, MSN, BSN, ARNP, APRN, LNC, RGON)
• 457 DC's (Doctor of Chiropractic, includes M Chiro)
• 410 PhD's - includes DSc (Doctor of Science); EdD (Doctor of Education); DrPH (Doctor of Public Health)
• 354 MD's (includes MBBS)
• 288 Dentists (DDS, DMD, BDS)
• 138 ND's (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine)
• 76 Lawyers (JD, LLB, Avvocato)
Not listed above, but included, are: pharmacist, veterinarian, water treatment worker, etc.

See Professionals' Statement: PDF | HTML | in French | in Italian | in Spanish
If you are a professional, add your name to the Statement.

---

8 of the top 10 WORST CITIES FOR TEETH are fluoridated. The November 2010 issue of Men's Health magazine identified the following 10 cities for WORST TEETH:

1. St. Louis - Fluoridated since 1963
2. Philadelphia - Fluoridated since 1954
3. Newark (NJ) - Not fluoridated
4. Baltimore (MD) -Fluoridated
5. New Orleans (LA) - Fluoridated since 1974
6. Jackson, Mississippi - Fluoridated since 1969
7. Jersey City, New Jersey - Not fluoridated
8. Milwaukee (WI) - Fluoridated since 1953
9. Kansas City (MO) - Fluoridated since 1981
10. Dallas (TX) - Fluoridated since 1966

• In 2009, TotalBeauty.com published their list of the 14 "WORST" cities for teeth.
Eleven of these 14 cities are fluoridated.

---