Are anti-fluoridation activists coming to your town? -

Are anti-fluoridation activists coming to your town?

Windsor is the latest city to cave to anti-fluoride activists. And it won’t be the last.


Fabrice Lerouge/Getty

It was an all too familiar scene. In late January, city councillors in Windsor, Ont., gathered to vote on whether or not to remove fluoride from the municipal water system. Health experts, including Canada’s chief dental officer, Peter Cooney, had descended on the town with stacks of evidence about the benefits of fluoridation as a harmless, cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay. Meanwhile a much more vocal, angrier crowd of activists railed against the decades-old health policy as paternalistic and dangerous. The debate raged into the night, but for those who have followed the mounting backlash against fluoride in Canada in recent years, the ending was all but guaranteed. And like that, Windsor’s local politicians became the latest to bow to pressure from the anti-fluoride lobby, voting to scrap the practice starting in April.

For scientists and health officials, the decision was a blow. “We’re not talking about a new subject here, this is a well-accepted public health intervention,” says Allen Heimann, the medical officer for Windsor-Essex County. But it could hardly have been unexpected. Since 2005, more than 30 communities have voted to do away with fluoridation, including Calgary, Waterloo, Ont., Slave Lake, Alta., and Quebec City. During this same period, the share of the Canadian population with access to fluoridated water has fallen to 32.5 per cent, down from 43 per cent, according to the Ontario-based Environmental Training Institute, which trains municipal waterworks operators across Canada.

Those in Windsor who opposed fluoride rehashed many of the same arguments put forth in other cities—that the additive is harmful to the teeth and bones of children, citing studies that link fluoride to kidney disease and lowered IQs. These claims have been dismissed by the Canadian Dental Association, the World Health Organization and Health Canada. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control hails water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

Yet in the face of such a complex issue, municipal governments have tended to side not with the experts being helicoptered in for council hearings, but with motivated local voters who inundate them with phone calls, petitions and their own stacks of evidence sourced from the Internet.

  • Learn more about the fluoride debate: Science-ish blogger Julia Belluz examines the evidence behind the outrage:

In many ways the rise of the grassroots anti-fluoride movement is similar to the anti-vaccine lobby, which has campaigned hard against the practice of vaccinating children on the grounds it causes autism. Those opposed to fluoride are equally organized and determined, driven by the belief that the medical establishment is ignoring recent research. “The professional association is so used to saying it’s safe and effective and when the truth comes out, they still say it’s safe and effective,” said Robert J. Fleming, president of the grassroots group Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation. “What’s wrong with that scientific picture? It’s very clear, it’s propaganda.”

Anti-fluoride activists show no signs of letting up. A group calling itself Fluoride-Free Ottawa has formed in the nation’s capital, with members hosting biweekly meetings, writing letters to the city and reaching out to the public via leaflets, advertisements and YouTube. Residents of Sudbury, Ont., may face a referendum on the matter in 2014, according to the mayor. And councillors in the city of Cornwall, Ont., came close to voting on fluoridation last month, though they’ve deferred the decision for now.

Not all cities do away with fluoridation, of course. Last last year Red Deer, Alta., opted to keep it in place. The issue had once again flared up there after Calgary voted to get rid of fluoride in 2011. During his nine years in office, Red Deer Mayor Morris Flewwelling has seen the treatment contested several times. He says he’s both “proud and sad” to report his council spent almost two years and $75,000 reviewing mountains of paperwork and listening to hours of testimony. “I think we looked at Calgary and we felt their process was hurried and flawed,” he says.

In Red Deer both sides presented experts and research, but the relatively small group of 50 championing the anti-fluoridation cause was by far the most outspoken. And, Flewwelling admits, if the vote had happened a few months earlier, the outcome would have been very different. That’s because health experts only mobilized once they realized “alarmist” activists appeared to be winning. “To do nothing would mean that any public body like a city council would have to bow to the overwhelming public sentiment,” he says. And that, he warns, is what is likely to happen as the movement ensnares other municipalities.


Are anti-fluoridation activists coming to your town?

  1. Flouride in the drinking water might have been a good idea in 1953, but it’s not 1953…it’s 2013. Dumping huge quanties of this stuff into the water we drink in hopes of providing some protection against tooth decay is absurd.
    We’re not a third world country.
    Buy a tooth brush and brush your teeth! In country where poor people are struggling with diseases caused by obesity, I hardly think a tooth brush and a tube of tooth paste is out of reach.

    • in 1953 canada was not a 3rd world country either. your alarmist argument is absurd and contradicts decades of scientific research. flouridated drinking water prevents tooth decay, thats a fact. adding it to the water supply is a ridiculously cheap and effective way of distributing it to the general population, another fact. iunce of prevention worth a pound of cure ring a bell.? show me research tbat suggests that levels of fluoride are either excessive AND harmful then ill listen to you. until then ill wait for you to hate on polio vaccines and seatbelts

      • Rather than ask people to prove fluoridation causes harm (mothers of children with dental fluorosis presented this harm to Windsor council) – safe water advocates ask you to prove it is safe. After decades of this experiment it shouldn’t be hard for you to draw upon at least one tox study, at least one piece of primary research that proves that ingesting silicofluorides is safe for us all.
        Here we see no such safety studies exist (Windsor moh):
        Here is our moh admitting in the absence of safety studies, take precaution:

        But of course, with the decades of research you claim exists – you’ll be able to provide a link to the study that proves fluoridation is effective and that it is safe.

      • Where do you get your “facts,” George? Sure evidence please. Just one double-blind, peer reviewed study to give you a touch of credibility. Would you like us to provide you with such from the other side? Email me in case I don’t return here, and I’ll be glad to provide it…

        The point is you have no right to force medicate, no matter if dangerous or safe. Isn’t that so?

      • You are so pathetically misinformed: even the Canadian Dental Association itself stated officially in 1993 that there was no evidence, after 50 years of fluoridation, that this practice had any effect on rates of dental decay or even strengthened dental enamel. Cosmetic dentistry is the result of fluoridation…it is a very lucrative treatment as it requires treatment of all teeth in one’s mouth due to fluoride toxicity. Even Statistics Canada showed that dental fluorosis was increasing rapidly in Canada. If you have evidence then put it forth. It will be the first time since 1945 that anyone was ever able to show that fluoridation of water had any benefits whatever. Lots of opinions, but no proof, ever. Lots of proof of extreme harm to the point where the Chief Medical Officer in Ottawa admits the harm and suggests people should buy a reverse osmosis system to take the fluoride out! You George are absurd and I would bet that you are a dentist making a killing from treating dental fluorosis…a horrific disfigurement far more expensive to correct than a cavity.

      • “flouridated drinking water prevents tooth decay, thats a fact” – it is not a fact. dental grade fluoride may help prevent tooth decay, however it needs to have contact the teeth to be effective – there is no benefit in INGESTING it. It is also arguable wither or not water supply is injected with dental grade fluoride

    • When fluoridation began, fluoridated toothpaste wasn’t available. We are exposed to far greater amounts of fluoride today and when (the lowest industrial waste grade) fluoride is added to the water supply it is impossible to monitor and control our total exposure – Health Canada says we should monitor our exposure – and now in Windsor, we can.

      • yes, Health Canada has a way of ‘recommending’ harmful practices, drugs, vaccines, antibiotics, but claiming they are not responsible for the outcome of following their ‘recommendations’. This department should be trashed, right after the Senate. It is not only useless, it is dangerous to our health, deliberately withholding the facts about countless peer-reviewed studies, withholding the fact that the stuff they claim is ‘fluoride’ is actually Hydrofluorosilisilic Acid, a Class 1 Hazardous Waste so toxic it is not permitted in the Sewer system! It is fraudulent and criminal to bait and switch and deliberately harm people and the laws are there to support this statement. Start with the Health Care Consent Act.

        I hope soon to start a class action lawsuit for all those harmed.. especially those suffering dental and skeletal fluorosis, both easy to diagnosis and which can ONLY be caused by repeated fluoride ingestion. Doctors are prescribing psychiatric medications to people without telling them that they contain fluoride…automatically making patients fluoride poisoned! Then there are the people suffering arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium poisoning as a result of this practice, which they were told by the CDC itself in 1993 had no benefit whatever.

        • “I hope soon to start a class action lawsuit ” – count me in. And it does not have to be for those who were harmed , it can merely be based on medication without consent.

    • While the studies supporting fluoridation refer to sodium fluoride, they’ve been using an entirely different and highly poisonous product, hydrofluorosilicic acid (speak of bait and switch). Not that those studies were ever valid in any other way, as has been proven.

      Getting rid of their industrial toxic waste, and even making a profit to boot, has been the game from the beginning. There’s never ever been a good idea here. It’s killing everyone, literally. Think of it: They take it out of the environment as a contaminant to stop killing us but put the same stuff in our water to drink. How insane or criminal is that?

      And the choir boys in white coats…uh, gowns, sing fluoridation’s praises, not having a clue what they’re singing (giving them benefit of doubt); just singing because they think they look and sound so good.

      And perhaps the saddest part is that the dying congregation has loved to have it so, admiring the choir and trusting the priests in charge.

      • the practice has only one benefit that can be proven…the lucrative income from treating the epidemic of dental fluorosis caused by the practice itself. With fluoridation, the cosmetic dental industry will wither away.

  2. The very stupid are sometimes also the very loud. These crazy anti-flouride and anti-vaccine people are doing tremendous damage to the health of our children. If fighting them with the cold hard facts and knowledgable scientists isn’t working, perhaps its time to make a more… emotional… pitch to the public on this issue

    • anti-vaccine = red herring, nobody but you makes THAT connection here…. didn’t happen in Windsor. “flouride” there’s no flour in fluoride

      Fluoride is a general protoplasmic poison. Now THAT’s real science for you.

      The Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943, editorial, said:
      “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons.”

      This concurs with an earlier declaration contained in another professional Journal. The Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 23, page 568, April, 1936, titled “Fluorine in relation to bone and tooth development” by Floyd DeEds, Phd,
      – where that previous statement was corroborated before its time.

      So, what happened since then. Fluoride hasn’t changed. Social engineering of our perceptions is what’s changed. Social engineering has made us accept it as if it was NOT harmful when it really IS harmful…

      Sorry to deflate your balloon, but, there were never any cold, hard facts presented in Windsor from the anti-cessation side. Just intimidating blather and falsified data. But then if you didn’t look at what was presented and closed your mind to it, then you will never hear nor see the truth.

      BTW, calling fluoridation cessation (anti-fluoride) experts “stupid” is uncalled for. Have you ever met any of these wonderful people, talked to them one on one. You’d be pleasantly surprised and might want to befriend them. Otherwise, stupid must be a reflection of what you see when you look at yourself in the mirror.

      My comments here apply to all other misled anti cessation close minded individuals. Contrary to all of you, I will now live longer in prosperity and good health, having abandoned all fluoride consumption that I can identify and eating wholesome foods instead of the empty dead foods served up to us by those whose greatest concerns are profit and power above that of our health and well being.

      • Well said Richard! I think the proof that fluoride and the co-contaminants reduce IQ by 10% is especially noticeable in some of the comments on this article.

    • Fluoridation was based on an emotional pitch to the public right from the start, devised by none other than the master of spin, Edward Bernays.

      • From Historical Notes: Dental
        associations of Canada and the USA were and are heavily supported by the
        Kellogg Foundation, a major proponent of eugenics. The dental association stated: “The
        public attitude is impressed by, and is inclined to adopt as its own, that
        which it reads and that which it sees. Tell an individual or a community
        anything long enough or often enough and faith in its truth will almost
        certainly be established.” – Christiansen J.F.: “The
        relation of certain professional trends to private practice”, J. Am.
        Dent. Assn. 21 (Oct. 1934) 1763.

        You may recognize that statement as a paraphrase of Hitler’s Big Lie theory.

        All professional dissent of the fluoridation practice
        was immediately quashed. An example is
        from historical notes: “The dental member should be aggressive in his stand for a policy on water fluoridation. It really does not make sense to have the efforts of the dental director counteracted by contrary statements made by another member of the state health department.” – Oliver O.A.: “Role of the dentist on state and local boards of health”, J. Am. Dent. Assn. 51 (1955) 451

        From the 1st day, it was the biggest fraud ever…criminal as it is today, and fraudulent.

    • appeal to emotion, you’d like to forgo evidence and use a fallacy

      when you’re talking to mothers with children damaged from ingesting fluoride every day of their lives, I think the emotional component is already there

      • A quote: “Dr
        Dean Burke an American biochemist, a co-discoverer of biotin, medical
        researcher, and a cancer researcher at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the
        National Cancer Institute and not a dentist, was quoted “In point of fact,
        fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other
        chemical.” Congressional Record
        21 July 1976.

    • You aren’t loud or hard to deal with, are you, Dan? And full of substance, too. Who can argue?

    • You can have all the fluoride and vaccinations you want…just don’t force others to have to ingest it…go buy all the fluoride tablets you want, and swallow all the fluoridated toothpaste you can buy, but leave the rest of us free to choose to not have it. In a democracy, you are not supposed to have the right to force others. Interesting how fluoridation and vaccination proponents NEVER discuss the anti-democratic aspects of their tyrannical behavior. You want to poison yourself, be my guest. I don’t have to join you. Not a single one of you ever produce a single piece of independent, peer-reviewed evidence to support your position that EVERYONE needs to be force-medicated for something that is neither contagious or life-threatening. And if you think vaccinations are safe, then why not tell us why the US had to set up a separate Vaccine Court to deal with the thousands of lawsuits filed over vaccine damage? Already it has awarded some $3.2 Billion (that is a B) in damages. The latest two major awards were $10 Million each in California. Big Pharma is paying many more billions quietly with gag orders!

      Your opinion means nothing except to the extent that it demonstrates clearly that democracies are at risk when people like you have a vote. Unless you can show real evidence, then stop talking.

  3. Anecdotal information is not the same as scientific research. Let’s keep the fluoride! When the Canadian Dental Association, the
    World Health Organization, and Health Canada are onside, I tend to listen. The rest of the conspiracy theorists are doing immense harm to future generations. Think about it – it would be so easy for the Canadian dentists to be against this chemical. After all, the lack of it in our water means lots of work for them in the future because of an increase in cavities. However, they are not against it. Moreover, “The U.S. Centers for
    Disease Control hails water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public
    health achievements of the 20th century”. I can’t believe we are still having this discussion. What’s next? An end to vaccines?

    • Endorsements and science are not the same thing. Where are the randomised controlled trials which back up the practice of fluoridation? The answer is they don’t exist.

    • If you’re against endorsement and anecdote for policy making – than you’re against fluoridation – because this is the only evidence the fluoridation lobby brings.

      The safe water folks provided peer-reviewed published research that when fluoridation ends, decay rates do not increase. But dental fluorosis rates decrease – fluoridation causes harm and is not even preventing cavities.

      • There is really only one thing that anti-fluoridation folks should need to bring to any democratic meeting…the law. Our law states that we have a right to full disclosure and to make an informed decision, to have to give full consent before being medicated….need I say more. All patients are required to be monitored and individually dosed. Regardless if it causes us to poop gold, we should have a right to refuse it.

    • Dramagal,

      You said “Think about it – it would be so easy for the Canadian dentists to be
      against this chemical. After all, the lack of it in our water means lots
      of work for them in the future because of an increase in cavities.
      However, they are not against it”

      Let’s employ your logic in the above comment and consider that dentists would be for the side of the fluoridation issue that would give them lots of work because of an increase in dental caries. As you’ve noted, they are for fluoride. Does it not therefore follow that artificial water fluoridation is giving them more work than if water were not fluoridated?

      • Gee, please don’t use logic with this one…it may really confuse her. She is so lacking in facts and has ingested so much fluoride she really has no idea what she is saying.

    • 97% of western Europe and 94% of the WORLD drink UN-fluoridated water. What about their health organizations? What about Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, who says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology.” Or the 4400+ professionals who have signed the Statement Against Water Fluoridation…

      Broaden your scope a bit Dramagal.

      • You do know that in much of Europe, they add fluoride to the table salt, or to milk, right?

        They are still ingesting fluoride, it’s just administered through a different route than it is in North America.

        • Many Europeans do not use table salt…they use sea salt and only cow’s milk contains fluoride…and not sourced from Hydrofluorosilisilic Acid either. Further, since they can choose non-fluoridated salt and milk, they have a choice the rest of us don’t. In Europe it is not administered…it is offered in some forms as an option. Huge difference…note it doe s not involve violating other people’s right to be free of forced-medication.

      • Over 7,000 professionals have signed the Statement now. And 14 Nobel Prize winners have spoken against the unethical, immoral and the sheer number of violations of basic human rights of fluoridating people. People in fluoridated area have lovely white teeth. All you need do is see the results of Vancouver (non-fluoridated) vs. Toronto (fluoridated. Vancouver has far few cavity issues and next to no dental fluorosis.

    • The Canadian Dental Association was the organization that determined the 0.050 mg/kg body weight/day Upper Limit to avoid fluoride toxicity in young children in 2000, Health Canada warns of overexposure in formula-fed infants in its 2011 review, and the Codex Alimentarius (the international nutrition science equivalent of the WHO – medical doctors do not receive adequate training in this area which is why they exist as separate, but related, disciplines) states unequivocally that “Fluoride should not be added to infant formula”. The long-term consequences of overdosing our unborn and newborn babies with artificially fluoridated water have never been studied systematically, nor reviewed by any independent regulatory body – this is why endorsements from the agencies you mention despite the lack of toxicology studies for fluoridation chemicals is such a massive breach of public trust.

      • In fact, there are many warnings that diabetics, those suffering kidney issues, hypothyroidism, the elderly, infants and those taking already heavily fluoridated psychiatric medications must avoid fluoridated water. The Chief Medical Officer in Ottawa claims they can do so by buying themselves a reverse osmosis system. It is well known that heating tap water causes the chlorine to evaporate, but the fluoride to become doubly concentrated!

    • Wow! You’ve been answered here, and well, but where to begin when I catch my breath. How about considering that the same government you trust has approved tobacco, lead, asbestos, 2-4-D, and thalidomide. Add to that our friend Dr. Cooney, who stands in advantage and defense of mercury amalgams. So keep trusting. How naive of you! Government bureaucrats and politicians are automatic angels, immune to error and evil influence, are they?

      And don’t dentists stand a chance to make big bucks here with dental fluorosis rampant because of fluoridation – not merely a cosmetic issue by the way?

      Does it matter if they’ve approved the drug you’re taking to make you say these things? Does that justify your naivety and error?

      “One of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century”? Really? The truth is, without exaggeration, Dramagal, that it has turned out to be one of the worst and most expensive tragedies in American history, worse than all the wars it has fought! Try the cost of dumbing down with fluoridation several points in the IQ – a proven fact in studies.

      See chapter 15, The Case Against Fluoride, by Connett, Beck and Micklem, all PhD’s, highly proficient in their work. Buy and learn!

    • You fool! Dental fluorosis is far more lucrative for dentists then filling a cavity once in a while. Dental fluorosis is disfiguring and affects all the teeth in the mouth. Cosmetic dentistry is far more important to dentist’s income than filling a few cavities. Check it out by calling a dentist and asking the price. Right now, 41% of teens in the USA have MODERATE to SEVERE dental fluorosis.

      You really have to stop drinking the Kool-aid…but at least if you won’t then stop trying to force the rest of us to join you. Even the Canadian Dental Association stated officially in 1993 that there was no evidence whatever that fluoridation of water had any positive benefits on cavity rates or enamel strength.

    • “However, they are not against it” – neither are they for it, since it does not really matter to the teeth one way or the other. Recommending something as that comes with the responsibility to take the blame, if something goes wrong. I didn’t see Canadian Dental Association offering to take all the responsibility for adverse consequences, did you ?

  4. This is what happens when a society turns anti-intellectual and anti-science.

    It’s a sign of a dying culture.

    • The sooner the pollution-happy culture of the 1940s dies, the better. I have two university degrees in the physical sciences, btw, and you won’t find many promoters fluoridation who are more intellectual, if any. Fluoridation breaks every rule of safe, ethical, and effective medical practice.

      • This comment was deleted.

        • name-calling demonstrates the value of your input

          • You know very well what ‘woo-woo’ means. Right up there with quacks.

    • Clearly you haven’t reviewed the scientific evidence presented to Windsor Council – peer-reviewed published research submitted that lead to a majority vote.
      Fluoridation is unproven, unnecessary and unethical.

      • Woo-woo

        • 94% of the world has rejected water fluoridation – the world is wrong, and you are right – because you know how to name-call.

          • No they haven’t.

            World isn’t flat either. Quacks.

          • hahaha – yes, quacking is about the best you can do with your evidence in support of medicating the water with a hazardous waste grade fluoridation chemical. The world being flat, another red-herring. Yes can you imagine if the folks refused to look at modern info and just kept on supporting a belief even as the evidence mounted proving the belief/myth was wrong…

            67% of Canada has responded to the modern science and evidence and have rejected water fluoridation, a small percentage is still holding on to those 1950’s myths (these folks probably still believe mercury, asbestos, vioxx, thalidomide and leaded gas are good things).

            It is easy to see how the majority of Windsor Council (and Amherstburg, Lakeshore, Tecumseh, Orillia, Niagara, Calgary, Moncton, Thunder Bay etc etc…) came to the conclusion that water fluoridation needed to end – when one looks at the evidence.

            Here is just a small example of what some other countries have done regarding water fluoridation:

            Denmark: banned fluoridation when its National Agency
            for Environmental Protection, after consulting the widest possible range of scientific sources, pointed out that the long-term effects of low fluoride intakes on certain groups in the population (for example, persons with reduced kidney function), were insufficiently known. Source: National Agency of Environmental Protection, Denmark. February, 1977.

            Sweden: rejected fluoridation on the recommendation of a special Fluoride Commission, which included among its reasons that: “The
            combined and long-term environmental effects of fluoride are insufficiently known.” Source: Report of Swedish Fluoride Commission. Stockholm 1981.

            Germany: water fluoridation stance can be defined in this quote: “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”

            Czech Republic: ceased fluoridation in 1993. From Dr. B. Havlik of the Ministry of Health: water fluoridation is uneconomical with less than 1% of the treated water being used for drinking; unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance); unethical (forced medication); toxicologically and physiologically debatable.

            China: stopped fluoridating in 2002, several studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ in children.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Windsor now joins the majority of the world. In fact, our whole county is now fluoridation free – most of it was never fluoridated to begin with

            Windsor water will now be safe for formula fed infants – which is great for low income families because the Canadian Pediatric Society cautions parents to use Fluoride Free Water for mixing baby formula. But don’t take my word for it – check out this CPS website, look under the heading ‘how much fluoride does my child need’ – the last point says it all:


            And don’t worry, you were never arguing, that would imply you have something to offer the discussion lol.

          • That’s the best you can do, is it? A link to Wikipedia, which is notoriously unreliable.

          • No hon, it’s as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica I’m afraid.

            And that one entry answers it all….I told you I’m not going to argue with a Luddite.

          • So you believe that fluoridation is a good idea, and that Wikipedia is very reliable. Either of those beliefs by itself is enough to show that you will believe anything. That’s what the toxic silicofluoride industrial waste dumpers rely on – extreme gullibility.

          • Yada yada….big conspiracy…killed JFK ya know.

          • JFK – another red-herring – but hey, you are really good at that so you must be right – and 94% of the world is wrong.

          • Honestly EmilyOne, there are many ways you can get fluoride for personal use if you want it and no one will seek to interfere with your choice. But we resent your attempts to impose your views on others and that you think you should be able to make choices for us, especially since we live in a democracy. Surely you see how taking a position that you should decide for the rest of us what is best for us is unfair and undemocratic.

          • Kindly don’t tell me your anti-science views. I’m not interested.

          • Yes, we’re addressing council with peer-reviewed research and it is no wonder you didn’t show up – you’d have been laughed out of the place….coming with a wiki-link – so ridiculous.

          • Yes, that’s right, I’m a Luddite. That’s why I’m sitting here with my laptop with an Ivy Bridge processor in front of me, using Dragon NaturallySpeaking 12 to write with because I suffer from skeletal fluorosis, looking at an LCD flatscreen monitor. And that’s why I studied science at university, and did my honours project on photovoltaic energy. The reality is that dumping chemicals into public water supplies as a means of delivering them as medicine is the most primitive and bizarre method ever devised. That’s not hard to understand; just think about it.

          • Being a Luddite has nothing to do with your toys….it has to do with your state of mind, and your POV or WV.

            Yours involves caves. Mine doesn’t.

          • You obviously have nothing to say, so why bother? You evidently don’t know what the word “Luddite” means either. No surprises there.

          • You may know a lot about photo voltaics, but you know nothing about the scientiic method. Or science as such.

            Either that or our universities know nothing about logic,dosage and degree these days.

            Aspirin has been used as a medication at least as long ago as Plato… it’s one of the most tested and reliable medications on the planet.

            However while one aspirin will fix a headache….taking a bottle of them can kill you.

            Dosage, Joe, dosage.

          • Emily,

            A few questions for you:

            1. What is the chemical formula for the fluoride our water treatment experts use?

            2. Where does it come from?

            3. Has it been tested for safety and efficacy?

            4. Aspirin is a medication which falls under pharmaceutical regulators. Who regulates the fluoride that goes into our water?

            5. Dosage is one thing, poison is quite another. Shall we add lead and
            arsenic to our water to top up maximum allowable limits? Fluoride falls
            between them in terms of toxicity.

            If you can answer these honestly and factually, the discussion is worth pursuing. If not, we’re all wasting our time.

          • You’re not paying attention Sean Fife….I have no intention of getting into pilpul with whackdoodles.

            Anymore than I argue with anti-vaccine types or anti-wifi types or people who claim they’re allergic to electricity or those who claim to be anally probed by aliens.

            You’re all nutz.

          • No problem, Emily,

            I’ll answer for the sake of those who have an interest in truth, reality, justice and health for themselves and society.

            1. What is the chemical formula for the fluoride our water treatment experts use?

            Hydrofluorosilicic acid

            2. Where does it come from?

            It’s scrubbed from the smokestacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

            3. Has it been tested for safety and efficacy?

            No testing has been done by ANY regulatory agency.

            4. Aspirin is a medication which falls under pharmaceutical regulators. Who regulates the fluoride that goes into our water?

            No one. Not Health Canada, not the Canadian Dental Association, not the FDA or EPA south of the border… no one.

            5. Dosage is one thing, poison is quite another. Shall we add lead and
            arsenic to our water to top up maximum allowable limits? Fluoride falls
            between them in terms of toxicity.

            The fact is when we add hydrofluorosilicic acid to our water, we are adding lead, arsenic, radioactive isotopes and a number of other toxic byproducts.

          • hahaha – a wiki link, yes the highest standard for truth and science

          • Yes, you’re right, Emily!

            From the link you provided:

            Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is an inexpensive liquid by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture.[31] It comes in varying strengths, typically 23–25%; because it contains so much water, shipping can be expensive.[32] It is also known as hexafluorosilicic, hexafluosilicic, hydrofluosilicic, and silicofluoric acid.[31]

          • Hey, watch out for that Dihydrogen Monoxide while you’re at it eh?

            It’s a known killer.

          • Sean, you wrote a chemical name, not a chemical formula. Otherwise, you make very good points.

          • Right you are, Joe.

            Chemical formula is H2SiF6, however there are so many other nasties in the chemical soup, it would take a page to list them all – arsenic, lead, cadmium, radioactive isotopes…

          • ‘I have no intention of…’ supplying anything but ridicule and name-calling and a bunch of red-herring stuff – ooh, aliens and wifi – yes, that is in keeping with the topic at hand, you’re so clever, I can’t hardly stand it.

            The topic, in case you’ve forgotten, is the lack of evidence that fluoridation is safe and the lack of evidence that it is effective.

            If you had evidence, you’d put us in our place – instead of call us names.

            Fluoridation is unproven, unnecessary and unethical – and this understanding is becoming well known – so well known that most of the world is already aware and acting (have you heard how many Australian communities have ended fluoridation in the past several months?)

            When was the last Canadian community to start this practice, anyhow? I know the fluoridation lobby tried to get Orillia to start last year but that council didn’t see exposing every cell in our bodies and every person in the community to hazardous waste fluoridation chemicals as the solution to their ‘significant dental decay’ – oh wait, that claim about the decay rates was from the fluoridation lobby – in reality the folks in Orillia have less than one cavity more than the nearby folks forced to swallow fluoride every day.

            I wonder what the dental fluorosis rates are compared to these F’d communities?

          • How sweetly intelligent. And this is the remnants of an advanced culture demonstrated there in a last ditch stand, is it? Perhaps too little fluoride, Emily, along with overdosage of pride, ignorance and stubbornness?

          • What is the correct dosage of fluoride for a 2 month old baby? What is the correct dosage for a 200 lb man?

            Considering that the 2 mth old baby if fed formula would consume MORE fluoridated tap water than the typical man….yes DOSAGE – it is important.

          • Actually, one aspirin can kill some people. The phenomenon of aspirin sensitivity is well established, and some people experience anaphylaxis or aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, both of which are sometimes fatal. The estimates I’ve seen are that between 5% and 30% of asthmatics are sensitive to aspirin, and aspirin intolerant asthma is generally more severe than aspirin tolerant asthma. There are varying estimates of the prevalence of aspirin sensitivity, but it seems to affect at least 1% of the population. If aspirin were added to water supplies, a lot of people would be unhappy about that too, including me because I’m sensitive to aspirin and other salicylates, and because adding any medication to water supplies is unethical, wasteful, and ridiculous in so many ways. I’m also sensitive to fluoride, with artificially fluoridated water having a major impact on my health. Fluoride sensitivity has been confirmed in double-blind trials carried out separately by Waldbott, Feltman, and Moolenburgh and colleagues, and appears to be more common than aspirin sensitivity. Chemical sensitivities are not the same as IgE mediated allergies, so it isn’t necessary to completely eliminate exposure to the chemicals in question, which would be virtually impossible as far as fluoride and salicylates are concerned anyhow. All of this means that I have far more awareness and understanding of the importance of dosage than you do.

          • Actually, you are misinformed yet again EmilyOne. That aspirin is beneficial is Bayer propaganda. The actual science (peer reviewed with the studies duplicated) is that one aspirin per day will increase your risk of pancreatic cancer 53% and 2 aspirins each day, which is currently what is prescribed to ‘prevent’ heart attacks increase the risk of of pancreatic cancer by 86%. In addition, it will cause bleeding of the stomach wall. The kicker is that Bayer is the same company that built and ran Auschwitz (Nazi death camp). There is more money in treating pancreatic cancer than in treating the odd heart attack…follow the money trail before you accept

          • Aspirin has been around since ancient Greece…’s the most proven medication in history.

          • lots of name calling – not so much evidence – just like the fluoridation lobby, go figure.

          • “This is what happens when a society turns anti-intellectual and anti-science. It’s a sign of a dying culture.”

            Give us time to reverse ourselves and catch up to your social and intellectual excellence. When we do, we may not dignify you with responses.

        • Intelligent and informed comment…very intellectual and scientific.

    • Yes, disease, destruction and death everywhere. So begin to take a stand against ignorance and crime and oppose one of the most noxious substances known to man, taken from the smokestacks of the fertilizer industry as a contaminant and put in our water as a medicine, and people fall for it – if they even know about it. “Dying culture,” you say? You’ve got it!

    • This is what happens when common sense dissolves in favor of turning responsibility for your health and wellness to ‘white’ coats who have prostituted science so thoroughly and sold themselves to Big Pharma and any other igh paying ‘industry’ so effectively that it is proving down-right dangerous to go near them, let alone take their advice.

      • So go do a rain dance or whatever, and rattle your beads.


  5. I think there is a general trust issue at play here that hasn’t been sufficiently acknowledged, and that is that the regulating bodies that are meant to be protecting us have done a very bad job in some cases.

    Take the recent flap over pharmaceutical companies refusing to release studies (which Science-ish wrote about recently), or the widespread use of all sorts of chemicals that we shouldn’t be exposed to and that don’t even do what they’re meant to (e.g. flame retardants), the approval and widespread use of drugs that don’t do what they’re meant to (e.g. antidepressants, Tamiflu, etc.), etc.

    I think that this isn’t an issue of people being “insane” or “stupid”, but an issue of a decrease in trust in the processes that are meant to keep us safe. Should we be surprised when things like these drugs and chemicals seem to be rubber-stamped by government regulators and then people start cooking up conspiracy theories about governments and industries?

    That doesn’t mean that we should just throw our hands in the air and abandon science, modern western medicine, etc. It does mean that there is a serious trust issue that needs to be addressed by the scientific community, doctors, government regulators, and people in industry. I think that the anti-fluoride and anti-vaccine (and I don’t think that we should conflate the two, either) movements should be seen in no small part as symptoms of the failure of these communities in this regard, and not be simply written off as anti-intellectual or anti-science.

  6. I highly suggest that if people really want to know the truth which does not appear in this biased article, they watch a just- released documentary by a DENTIST, Dr. David Kennedy, DDS, called “FLUORIDEGATE: An American Tragedy”. This totally applies to Canada as well.

    FLUORIDEGATE the movie is a new documentary film that reveals the tragedy of how
    the United States government, industry, and trade associations protect and promote a policy known to cause harm to our country and especially small children, who suffer more than any other segment of the population. While the basis of their motivation remains
    uncertain, the outcome is crystal clear: it is destroying our nation.

    After watching that documentary, watch the full length version of a synopsis of
    Christopher Bryson’s “The Fluoride Deception” which is taken from his ten years
    of investigative journalism on Fluoridation.

    That will be enough for you to demand your elected officials stop putting a toxic
    waste chemical which has had no toxicology studies in your tap water. I am a
    retired RN, an intelligent grandmother who spent lots of time researching. I am not paid to get fluoridation stopped unlike the medical officers of health who are paid to push fluoridation or a dentist who will lose his/her license if they speak against fluoridation. I rage because it is possible that AWF was responsible for my son-in-law’s cancer and my grandchildren and other humans are being harmed by the hydrofluorosilicic acid used for Artificial Water Fluoridation which is unproven, unnecessary and unethical. The citizens must do their own research. The councillors in Windsor did their due diligence and voted to save their citizens from much suffering. One day there will be another honest journalist like Christopher Bryson who will write the truth about the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity according to Dr. Joseph Mercola, DO. because they did their due diligence rather than drink the Kool-aid of the public policy.

    • Thank you, Kallie Miller, and thank you for identifying yourself. We have a need to step up to the plate and say, “I’m not afraid or ashamed to lay it on the line and speak the truth.” Enough of political correctness, thus enabling, encouraging, even sanctioning the powers that be to carry on their egregious activities as though people don’t really care enough. We need not only to care enough, but express it, genuinely and boldly.

  7. The fluoridation dictators “rehashed many of the same arguments put forth in other cities—that the additive is” – “safe and effective” – blah blah blah blah… All they offered were lies, misinformation, disinformation, endorsements, not a shred of real, evidentiary science or research, just vacuous blather to impress and intimidate. The usual refuge of those who have nothing to offer in support of their beliefs.

    I can’t believe this “journalist” was taken in by all the trash he’s made to believe about fluoridation. I guess there are no more investigative reporters like Christopher Bryson.

    • You know, exactly the same comments [“…lies, misinformation, disinformation, endorsements, not a shred of real, evidentiary science or research…”] could probably be made about the “evidence” put forth by the anti-fluoridation side.
      Where’s your evidence to prove this journalist – and the experts – wrong?

      • The evidence was presented to council – who went on to vote to end fluoridation. The evidence is available in the links I provided to 2 (of many) submissions Windsor council received (see earlier post). Our council heard from several doctors and dentists that opposed fluoridation – the only folks there to promote it was our tax-paid fluoridation lobby

        • When I wrote my original comment, Richard’s was the second one showing. I was very skeptical, as it sounded a lot like the anti-vaccination nonsense. (Unlike the fluoridation issue, I have done a lot of reading on vaccinations.) I sounded off without reading the rest of the comments – let alone doing any independent research.

          I’ve now taken a look at some of the material supplied in the comments and I’m a lot less skeptical. Still not completely convinced, but much more open to the anti-fluoridation position than I was.

          Thanks for the helpful posts.

          • An open mind is essential – we were lucky, our councillors actually looked at the evidence (the majority of them) – they didn’t come to the table already deciding that the fluoridation lobby was correct just because the council listened to them 50 some years ago. Keep researching – there are very credible scientists that are opposed to fluoridation. Dr. Hardy Limeback is one of them, he just retired as the Head of the Dept of Preventive Dentistry at the U of T. He is a past president of the Canadian Dental Research Association and he was an esteemed panel member of the NRC’s Fluoride in Drinking Water research team. He’s also conducted and published fluoride research (Health Canada conducts no research, neither does public health)
            Also Dr. David Kennedy, past president of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. These fellows have a plethora of information/lectures etc easily available…

          • Keith, you need only read The Case Against Fluoride by three PhD’s and The Fluoride Deception by a REAL journalist, unlike the one we deal with here, and you’ll have all the proof you need against fluoridation fraud. Don’t put it off; the cause is a serious one for millions.

    • Truly, Richard, to “call a spade a spade,” these authorities water boarding us with toxic substances are at least criminally negligent, if not outright liars. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes either way when the truth finally comes out, and it always does. There will be Hell to pay.

      Thank you for your wonderful efforts. Keep it up, and be blessed, friend.

  8. The whole idea that science supports fluoridation is a myth. The reality is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly calls the practice into question. Fluoridation has always been all about politics, economics, and propaganda, not science. Of course fluoridationists claim the backing of science, because how else could they sell the idea of dumping huge amounts of toxic industrial silicofluoride or sodium fluoride waste into public water supplies? I’m not aware of any real scientists who support fluoridation. There may be a few, but fluoridationists are overwhelmingly administrators, bureaucrats, and politicians. There are also some dentists who are ardent supporters, having been indoctrinated with pro-fluoridation propaganda, but they are neither independent nor qualified to evaluate adverse health effects. 14 Nobel prize winners in either Medicine or Chemistry have publicly opposed fluoridation, and they are much better qualified to comment than ignorant fluoridationists, as are scientists from the US Environmental Protection Agency who have opposed fluoridation, and many other scientists.

    Fluoridation and the reckless burning of fossil fuels are both examples of grossly irresponsible pollution carried out to further corporate interests at the expense of the public, and in defiance of the best scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle. When a dentist supports silicofluoride pollution, it is similar to a geologist supporting carbon pollution, because they are both speaking outside of their area of expertise. And not only does science not support the idea that fluoridation is safe, it also does not support the idea that it is effective. The best studies have shown that fluoridation has little or no beneficial effect on the rate of dental decay, or is even harmful in that regard. When Sweden, the Netherlands, West Germany, and Japan discontinued fluoridation in the 1970s, the rates of dental decay did not rise, they fell rapidly. Denmark has the best dental health in the world, and has never had fluoridation.

    • Excellent, Joe. By you and many other faithful souls, the fraud of pseudoscience is taking a beating. How blind and arrogant the medical authorities who sacrifice lives on their altars of worship. They are being exposed, as it must be. See FluorideFreeLethbridge.

  9. Alert: Water Additive Accountability Bill

    Water operators, water districts and other entities that hold
    the responsibility of stewardship of our precious drinking water resources have
    asked that you help enact this protective legislation.
    Arkansas rules and regulations already establish protective standards for the chemicals that are added to the water to improve potability. However, manufacturers of these
    additives that are intended to treat humans, rather than the water, have largely
    ignored requests for more detailed information so that a water district is
    frequently persuaded to make a selection of a product based on the pressure to
    proceed with the public policy of adding a substance to treat humans without
    establishing full accountability, full disclosure of content, extent of
    contamination and full compliance with all laws and regulations.

    Senator Bryan King has
    submitted Senate Bill 255. The Water
    Additive Accountability Bill, which clarifies that copies of
    documents already required for manufacturers to merit certification of their
    product are disclosed and made fully available to the water district and
    consumers, along with a manufacturer’s declaration that they are accountable for
    their product fulfilling the safety and effectiveness claims made for the public

    The legislation that responsible water suppliers have proposed is intended to
    move past endorsements of the public policy and clarify law to assure
    accountability for the persuasive claims of adding a substance to our public
    drinking water; full disclosure of an additive’s contents and contaminants so
    there are no surprises; compliance with details of all rules, regulations, and
    laws intended to protect the consumer; and to assure conformance with
    already-established industry standards.

    Secure Arkansas supports this bill with no reservations and asks that
    you help with getting this great piece of legislation

    Please write, call or fax your legislators and tell them that you support Senate Bill 255, the bill that assures
    that the water district and all consumers have accountability and full
    disclosure for the products you drink and bathe or shower in every day.

  10. The
    CDC, ADA, AMA, local Health Departments, and all organizations that endorse
    fluoridating public water have a duty to present the toxicological studies that are required by the ANSI/NSF Standard
    60 Health Effects.

    federal agency has taken responsibility for fluoridation. The EPA set up the
    NSF International, a private, non-profit company, and in 1988 replaced its own
    drinking water additives program with NSF/ANSI Standards 60 and 61, which set
    public health standards for all chemicals used to treat water and products
    coming into contact with drinking water. These federal, public and private
    endorsers of fluoridation are unwilling to demand the studies needed for

    The very strong evidence to
    discontinue a well-accepted public health intervention is the ABSENCE of the toxicological studies REQUIRED by ANSI/NSF
    Standard 60. NSF, repackagers and the suppliers/manuf­acturers are not able ,
    or unwilling, to produce them. We need to see the original studies and all the
    data involved and not some review or opinion of them. Where are they?
    Endorsements, MSDS sheets and hollow promises are not enough. Publish them or
    provide a source where everyone can see for themselves if their chemicals,
    medicine, or drugs are “safe and Effective”.

    • Thank you for your informed contributions, Ron.

      Importantly, we need to recognize and make known that nobody has the right to medicate without knowledge or consent of the one medicated, even if studies were to vindicate the safety of the drug substances put into our water. Isn’t that a core social, moral, legal and ethical issue?

  11. Fluoridation
    chemicals, or drugs, or whatever one wants to call them are in non-compliance.
    Not with the FDA or even the EPA but with the National Sanitation Foundation
    International. The NSF was handed the hot potato years ago to approve water treatment
    chemicals and wrote the rules. Here’s the kicker, they require 20+ toxicological studies that must be provided by the manufacturers
    just to apply for certification. The NSF does NOT have ANY of them and neither
    do the repackagers or the manufactures.

    proponents MUST provide toxicological reports, provide a listing of
    contaminants, and proof that their product is safe for all water consumers;
    infants to seniors, people with arthritis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue
    syndrome, diabetes, kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, dialysis patients and people
    with depression.

    If they cannot provide these requirements that the NSF wrote in their own
    Standard 60 document, fluoridation must cease because of non-compliance.

    view the NSF/ANSI 60 – 2009 document go to:

    On page 9 of the pdf you will find

    A.4.1 General Requirements

    These are the studies right from the NSF document

    Having the
    NSF 60 stamp is not enough. Fluoridation materials must “conform”.

  12. It is too bad this author didn’t reach out to those in the Windsor community who worked on the safe water campaign – she had our contact info, she knew we were keen to answer her questions – but alas, it doesn’t seem like she was too concerned to learn WHY we asked our council to end fluoridation – I guess this article was the quick and easy route, that’s a pity.

    If she had taken the time to hear our story – she would have heard from mothers of children DAMAGED by ingesting fluoride. Children who not only have a plethora of cavities (that fluoridation did nothing to prevent) but who also have dental fluorosis – the visible sign of being over-exposed to fluoride – this pitting and staining is obvious and has been diagnosed by professionals – and these mothers wonder what this over-exposure has done to the tissues that can’t be as easily seen as the teeth (like their bones and brains).

    Here is the comment of one member of Fluoride Free Windsor following the council meeting where the decision was made to make our water safer. This member is a mother of a child with dental fluorosis, and her husband is a dentist: “I personally found the minimization of dental fluorosis insulting and disconcerting. The medical and dental folks completely avoided any reference to the costs involved (and for which dentists profit) to
    remedy the cosmetic issues. My own husband has struggled with it in dealing with our own son. Bleaching was ineffective, and I believe he has lately resorted to some manner of micro abrasion. I don’t even want to ask him how much an off-the-street patient would be paying out of pocket for that treatment. Let it suffice to say it would be punitive
    over and above knowing that your child was exposed to toxic levels of any compound.”

    This Macleans’ author likens the fluoridation issue to anti-vax movements – but this is not the case. If a comparison is to be made we should look to the investigative offerings by journalist Christopher Bryson (real journalism) who says that fluoridation science is like asbestos science, like tobacco science. This journalist did real research and revealed much that the author of this Macleans’ article could have benefited from reading.

    To give you a picture of what went on in Windsor, here are videos from council presentations. In one, we learn about the source of the fluoridation chemical from the water system administration. In the second, we learn there has never been study to show safety of this fluoridation chemical for human ingestion. In the 3rd, we hear from the Windsor mayor, as to why he voted to end fluoridation.




    And for those that live in the few remaining communities (67% of Canada and 94% of the world has rejected water fluoridation) that still medicate the water supply with hydrofluorosilicic acid, or some other silicofluoride compound – perhaps you’ll benefit from these 2 submissions that were presented to Windsor Council who went on to a majority vote to end this gone-too-long experiment.

    • Excellent, courageous work, Dean and Kim. God bless you richly for it. Remember us at

  13. Long after the early days of water fluoridation nearly three generations ago, the Canadian Dental Association set a daily Upper Safe Limit of 0.05 mg of fluoride (from ALL sources) per kilogram body weight to reduce the risk of fluoride toxicity, and the National Academy of Science has set a daily Upper Limit of 0.7 mg for children less than 6 months and 0.9 mg for babies 7-12 months. In its 2011 review, Health Canada determined that soy-based formulas (likely due to the fluorinated pesticides like Trifluralin used in North American agriculture – it is banned in Europe) contain up to 0.24 ppm (mg/kg or mg/L) of fluoride BEFORE you’ve added any water, and warned that infant formulas made with fluoridated water pose the risk of overdose for formula-fed babies. This is consistent with the advice of all the major pediatric associations around the world, including the Codex Alimentarius (the gold standard for nutrition research) that states unequivocally that “Fluoride should not be added to infant formula”, because breastmilk (the perfect food for babies) only contains 0.01 ppm of fluoride. If you use data available at any Public Health Unit on average feed intake and weight for age (or the values for your own young child, grandchild, niece, nephew or neighbour) and plug in the values for Windsor’s “optimally” fluoridated water, you find that all babies less than 6 months and all children less than 11 kgs (about 24 lbs) are currently being severely overdosed by the water ALONE. And yet, in Windsor, we had 3 highly-paid Medical Officers of Health (Warshawsky from London, Heimann and Kirk from Windsor) who didn’t or couldn’t do the grade 5 math (most probably because Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Arlene King, hasn’t done it either and/or given them permission to do so), and conscientious (and I daresay, numerate and refreshingly scientifically literate) municipal councillors, who are now legally on the hook for the safety of their community’s water supply according to Sections 19 and 20 of Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act, are criticised for “bowing” to a vocal group of activists – mostly highly-educated mothers of fluoride-injured children and their allies, as it turns out. But then again, the responsibility and decision about how to protect the most vulnerable members of society reside with the caregivers, so none of these math-phobic medical bureaucrats can be held responsible for their abuse of authority anyway. The Medical Autocracy of the last century has outlived its usefulness. It’s time for changes that put information and decision-making power back into the hands of those who are most motivated and qualified to use it properly – the caregivers, who are the world’s leading experts on their children.

  14. Why would the science behind fluoridation even matter when the real issue is forcing medication onto the population?

    • Our medical officer of health told the media that the ETHICAL argument is hard to counter. What the fluoridation lobby is asking municipal councillors to do, no doctor or dentist could do. Indiscriminately medicating the population without informed consent, without monitoring them and warning of side effects, without considering their total fluoride exposure or if they are already over-exposed to fluoride from other sources…

      And none of these agencies that promote fluoridation are accountable or liable – they endorse it, they don’t study it or research it – just tax-funded fluoridation marketing.

    • It matters because some people are apparently unable to understand the problem with compulsion.

    • Indeed, Michael, indeed. None of us needs to be a scientist. All we need is common sense and justice. However, we have the science as well.

      Isn’t it interesting how those with the numerous double-blind, peer reviewed science (anti-fluoridation proponents) are defamed and maligned as wackos by the “scientific” communities of medicine, dentistry and government agencies, such as Health Canada, or in our case, Alberta Health? Meanwhile, all they can do is expect us to respect their white coats while offering us nothing at all for science? They constantly refer to sound science that never was. We are up against arrogant liars and fools and must make it known they are empty and criminally irresponsible.

  15. Our Windsor elected officials did not ignore the experts when they voted against artificial fluoridation. There are no scientific peer-reviewed toxicological studies demonstrating fluoridation chemicals are safe or even effective at reducing tooth decay. Meanwhile, EPA chemists like William Hirzy, toxicologists like Phyllis Mullenix, and dentists like Hardy Limeback – who actually studied fluoride toxicity, warn against artificial fluoridation.

    The Canadian Pediatric Society states,

    “Fluoride prevents caries mainly by its topical effect … Ingested
    fluoride, on the other hand, has little effect on caries, but contributes
    significantly to the development of fluorosis.”

    And the CDC estimates that more than 40% of adolescence have dental fluorosis – permanent damage to tooth enamel. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if fluoride over-exposure damages teeth, it can also hurt other tissues in your body.
    This SHOULD alarm our public health officials and you do a disservice to those of us who have tried to raise awareness. If we stuck to the status quo, we would be still be smoking in public places and pouring pesticides on every living blade of grass.

    The Safe Drinking Water Act states “Dilution is no defense for adding a contaminant to drinking water.” Meanwhile, CEPA classifies hydrofluorosilicic acid as a persistent, bio-accumulative, inorganic toxin.

  16. The simple fact is most Canadians are not qualified to make decisions about their own health.
    Sorry, but you aren’t. You barely passed high school science 30 or 40 years ago, and you are just not qualified to analyze a real scientific report.
    Rail against vaccination or fluoridation all you want – you are wrong. You’re just lacking the basic skillset to understand things.

    • Did you look at the submissions Windsor Council received? Many doctors and dentists recommended the city stop fluoridation.

      Canada’s leading fluoride toxicity expert, Dr. Hardy Limeback (he conducted fluoride and fluoridation research!) is opposed to fluoridation.

      The only supposed ‘experts’ that promote fluoridation are the ones paid to.

    • I have two degrees in the physical sciences from one of Australia’s better universities, one of which is an Honours degree. But I am poorly qualified to comment in comparison to the 14 Nobel prize winners in either Medicine or Chemistry, scientists from the US EPA, and several other scientists who have opposed fluoridation. It seems to be some kind of law of nature that fluoridationists are shameless hypocrites. Judging from your comment, John, you are not qualified to make decisions about anything.

      • Simply not true….sorry.

        • Joe made several assertions in that post…

          1) Joe Bloggs has two degrees in the physical sciences
          2) He is poorly qualified to comment in comparison to Nobel Prize winners
          3) 14 Nobel prize winners have opposed fluoridation
          4) It is a law of nature that fluoridationists are hypocrites
          5) John is not qualified to make decisions about anything

          I’d have to guess that you’re objecting to number 3? How about elaborating?

          • Joe makes lots of statements that are hogwash….but if you’re keen on the Nobel prize winner one…..a) the prize is awarded for something specific in a field, not for being right in all subjects. Yassir Arafat won a Nobel prize. Would you believe him on all topics?

            b) The 14 go back to 1929….when we had zik in knowledge compared to now….but rather than refute all of them, lets just skip to the latest. Arvid Carlsson who won in 2000. The reason he opposes florouide?

            ‘he helped to convince Parliament that water fluoridation
            should be illegal due to ethics. He believes that water fluoridation
            violates modern pharmacological principles, which indicate that
            medications should be tailored to individuals.’


            NOT because of a medical reason.

          • Thanks. I agree with your implied point that the “14 Nobel Prize winners” talking point is a bit of a misrepresentation. It is often stated in such a way as to leave the impression that 14 Nobel Prize winners got together and wrote an letter condemning fluoridation (at least, that was always my assumption until I looked into it). But Joe did state it accurately when he said. “…who have opposed fluoridation.”

            Regarding your first point – we all know what the Nobel Prize is and, in this case, the 14 winners are at least scientists. Yassir Arafat is not on this list.

            But Arvid Carlsson’s objection to fluoridation is perfectly relevant. It’s a fair point to distinguish between “Medical” reasons and ethical ones, but I happen to think the ethical arguments are the strongest points the anti-fluoridation movement makes.

          • No, people don’t seem to know what a Nobel prize is, or what it involves….they seem to think it means ‘general genius and knowledgeable about everything’….. and I wanted to make the distinction quite clear….[altho Arafat was an engineer.]

            It’s how we get weathermen and geologists etc commenting on global warming and being mistaken for experts….climatologists….when they’re not.

            Ethical arguments are nice…..but useless….especially in this case when we don’t have ANY kind of ‘personalized medicine’. We all get the same antibiotics and pain-killers and heart medicine and so on….there being very few choices.

            Also at one time it was ‘unethical’ to relieve the pain of women in childbirth….there are other examples like circumcision and so on, but the point is……these people are just nuts. Just like the anti-vaccine nuts, and the wifi nuts and so on.

          • ‘We all get the same kind of antibiotics’ No we don’t, if you’re allergic you get something different and same for the rest of the meds you mentioned – none of them are given to every person in the population without regard for their needs. It would be unethical to do so (and it would harm some people, just like F does) – just like it is unethical to medicate the whole population with hazardous waste fluoridation chemicals.

          • Yeah hon, we do.

            There just aren’t that many antibiotics to choose from. Aren’t that many painkillers or heart drugs either. Sorry.

          • Well your name calling has become nicer but you’re not making sense.

            We do not give every person heart medicine – I’ve never been given heart medicine and neither has my children or my husband or my aunt or my cousins etc.
            Yet if we live in a fluoridated community (and can’t afford bottled water or expensive filter systems) we’re all medicated with the same ‘tooth medicine’ even if we have no teeth, if we’re sensitive to F, if we’re over-exposed elsewhere…

            The public drinking water supply should be free of unnecessary chemicals – and it shouldn’t be used as a delivery vehicle for any drugs, ever.

          • This is the kind of stupidity that gets you guys laughed at.

            The only thing ‘over-exposed’ here is your low IQ….now off you go.

          • So you’re denying that dental fluorosis exists. Dental fluorosis is the visible sign of over-exposure to fluoride – didn’t wiki tell you that?

            That laughing you’re hearing…it might have something to do with your strange denial of evidence and your support of wiki as credible.

            The majority of Canada and the world are over here reviewing the science and have appropriately acted on it – fluoridation is unproven, unnecessary, and unethical.

            And all you can do is throw out red-herrings and name-calling – but I see you’ve been at this a long time ‘original emily’ – you haven’t bothered to look at any actual evidence and instead you get kicks out of coming onto articles and hiding behind an anonymous user name claiming not to want to argue but posting again and again without adding any actual content to the discussion. I will be off now – to enjoy my coffee made with fluoride-free water.

            See you on the comments section of the next article touting another community that has ended this out-dated practice.

          • Many wise and scholarly persons have tried to warn you of the consequences of fluoridation, but noooo, you wouldn’t listen, and now see what you’ve done to yourself.

          • Choice and consent remain the issues. You have yours; we have ours.

          • If you want to educate yourself, you could start with Declan Waugh’s technical report and blog, or the Fluoride Action Network website.

          • Nobel prizes in the sciences are completely different to those in other fields. The whole idea of fluoridation is absurd, and fluoridationists are not experts on the subject by definition, so claiming that Nobel prize winners in Medicine or Chemistry and are not qualified to comment is a bit rich. Arvid Carlsson has not opposed fluoridation just on ethical grounds, as you claim. If you don’t trust Nobel prize winners, what about people like Kathleen Theissen, Robert Isaacson, William Marcus, Phyllis Mullenix, Declan Waugh, John Colquhoun, and Hardy Limeback? It is simply nonsense to say that we don’t have “ANY” kind of personalised medicine. There are different classes of antibiotics, with the fluoroquinolones being the most powerful and nasty to my knowledge. I can assure you that people who know they are aspirin sensitive do not voluntarily take aspirin, unless they are undergoing aspirin desensitisation. Apart from aspirin and other NSAIDs, acetaminophen, opioids, and capsaicin patches can be used for pain relief. To some degree, the dose of pharmaceutical medicines is tailored to the individual, and individual informed consent is required. Fluoridation, in contrast, breaks every rule in the book.

          • Even doctors will admit they will not and cannot medicate without a diagnosis, wisely determined need, prescription and knowledge and consent of the patient. But you, with your last bastion of sound society deem otherwise?

            Vaccinate yourself, Emily; you’re welcome to it. We aren’t forcing it on you. Don’t you dare force fluoride on us. Your logic and kind of society demands the survival of the fittest.

            Well, we wish to be fit, and we say no thanks to fluoride. If you want to be fit, and you think hydrofluorosilicic acid with lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium and radiation is good for you, scrubbed for the environment’s sake from industrial smokestacks is fine, be our guest, enjoy and…

            mind your own business.

          • Tailored to individuals IS THE MEDICAL REASON – good grief (as if medical ethics wasn’t enough lol).

            Here is an example – several of our members are highly sensitive to fluoride from any source – this is either because of an illness or just because their bodies can’t deal with fluoride as well as others (some submitted letters and some came and presented). The Kidney Foundation dropped its endorsement of water fluoridation long ago because those with kidney impairment are more susceptible to fluoride’s harms.

            – several of our members have children that have been diagnosed with dental fluorosis – meaning they have been over-exposed to fluoride; they want to be able to bathe their children and cook with tap water without further exposing their children

            – several of our members have thyroid dysfunction, and fluoride makes it worse – they’re supposed to avoid fluoride and yet their water was medicated with it (the lowest hazardous waste grade fluoride product available)

            – the Canadian Pediatric Society (and all the relevant health agencies) say babies should get zero fluoride – so when considering the INDIVIDUAL, formula fed babies should not be fed formula mixed with fluoridated water.

            Besides, if fluoride works at all it does so TOPICALLY – there is no shortage of topical pharmaceutical grade fluoride products – it doesn’t need to be in the public drinking water supply where every person regardless of need is exposing every cell in their bodies – for a ‘tooth medicine’.

            Under your water fluoridation wiki link – it says under SAFETY that all sources of fluoride exposure should be known. Do you know your total fluoride intake from all sources? Our public health official admitted that NO ONE IS MONITORING our total fluoride exposure – we know dental fluorosis is now effecting 40% of our children (this is from the CDC and the CHMS)…without knowing our total exposure we can’t be certain that ANY additional fluoride is safe.

    • Thank you John for truth on this.

    • What an insulting statement… Do you actually know who you are talking about?

      By your own statement, “You’re just lacking the basic skillset to understand things.” you are also disqualifying yourself from making your very own statement.

      You would have failed my social studies class and my class in logic hands down.

      • 42% of Canadians are functionally illiterate. They can’t even understand the instructions on a bottle of pills.

        So ‘educators’ shouldn’t talk.

        • Do you expect the illiterate to take your word for it? Do you deny them the right to accept or reject medication, especially when you haven’t diagnosed them, and especially when you’ve proven yourself so highly informed and intelligent in science? How about in ethics? How about in justice? Freedom of choice?

  17. Perhaps Manisha should have asked our Chief Dental Officer (who is also the chair of the World Dental Federation supported by industry) who also promotes mercury amalgams along with fluoridation, who would be accountable for the growing numbers of kids with dental fluorosis?

  18. It appears quite obvious to me that Manisha Krishnan seems to have done no investigative work on this subject, but gone to the propaganda sources from the ADA.

    Had he looked beyond the blandishments of these sources he would have found that there is no valid science behind their claims.

    The so-called “stacks of evidence” were absent in Windsor as they have been everywhere else in the past. This is more than a failure of trust. This is a failure of the bureaucracy to acknowledge that they need to look at the evidence and remove their blinders, admit that errors were made, take their lumps and truly look after what they were meant to look after: us, the public, whom they want to trust them with cold hard facts, real verifiable science, not vacuous blandishments without any valid science or real research research.

    The original “science” that got this whole problem going was flawed, was thoroughly debunked by reputable people and so the premise for starting it was unjustifiable and keeping it going has created the public health disaster predicted in a book published in 1961, The Fluoridation Experiment, by Exner, Waldbott & Rorty, last paragraph, page 27:

    “the authors of this book can only hope for a return of sanity and courage be­fore the most venturesome public-health experiment in history is liquidated by the undeniable realities of a national disaster.”

    The time is long past as witnessed by all the health crisis we have experienced, fluoridated water having dramatically added to the toxic burden we have all been exposed to since then because Fluoride is a known general protoplasmic poison that aggravates and often causes many adverse health conditions.

    The Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943, editorial, said:
    “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons.”

    This concurs with an earlier declaration contained in another professional Journal.
    The Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 23, page 568, April, 1936, titled “Fluorine in relation to bone and tooth development” by Floyd DeEds, Phd,
    – where that previous statement was corroborated before its time.

  19. None of this is about Fluoride….you folks don’t even know the first thing about fluoride!

    It’s all about the ‘govt being out to kill you’. Because for some reason you think it makes sense for govts to want to kill off their taxpayers!

    You guys are belligerent paranoids! Probably hear voices too!

    I dunno if you think Commies are doing this, or the UN, or ‘mad scientists’ and I don’t really care….you are all not only Luddites….but crazies as well….and you all belong in a rubber room.

    PS…take the anti-wifi and anti-vaccine people with you back to the caves.

    • I have been researching fluoride on and off for the past eight years, and know much more about it than you do, which admittedly is not saying much. I don’t think the government is out to kill me, I just think that most politicians are scientifically illiterate, like you, and many of them don’t care much about the people they are supposed to serve.

  20. My brother was born in Brantford, the town whose effects from natural fluoride first became known. He had one cavity his entire life, compared with the rest of us kids who have fillings in almost every tooth. One of my children did not get fluoride added to city water and has many cavities. I added fluoride to another of my children’s diets until all second teeth were in. That adult child has never had a cavity. Fluoride does make a different to dental health. This decision is a shame.

    • Your personal anecdotes are not scientific. In my mother’s family, of 5 children 3 had many cavities, 1 had none and another had only one cavity – they had the same access to fluoride.
      Of my children, my oldest had 7 cavities by the time she was 5 despite fluoridated water; for my second, I never gave her fluoride at all and she only got 2 cavities – but like your story, this is only anecdotal and shouldn’t be considered evidence of anything.
      The scientific evidence, that controls for confounding factors, shows that when fluoridation is ended, dental decay does not increase but dental fluorosis decreases. Here are a few citations for you to look into (if you’re interested in what the evidence says outside your own personal situation)

      1) “The prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community.” Maupome G, Clark DC (co-author of Health Canada Review 2007), Levy SM, Berkowitz. Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001; 29:37-47

      2) “This meta-analysis of available research demonstrates that cavity rates
      remained the same or continued to decline in communities which discontinued
      artificial water fluoridation.” Azarpazhooh A, Stewart H (Chief Dental Officer for Toronto). Oral Health; Consequences of the Cessation of Water Fluoridation in Toronto 2006

      3) “The effect of fluoridation on caries in these communities was not evident” “We
      found virtually no difference in caries prevalence or severity between 7-year-old children from schools in non-fluoridation Caledon and schools matched on socio-economic factors, in fluoridated Brampton.” Ito D (Past-President of Ontario Association of Public Health Dentistry).; Determinants of caries in adjacent fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities. IADR/AADR/CADR 85th General Session and Exhibition March 21-24, 2007 # 2757.

      4) “The few studies of communities where fluoridation has been withdrawn do not suggest significant increases in dental caries.”Ontario Ministry of Health 1999 study: Benefits and Risks of Fluoridation, Dr. David Locker of the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto

      5) “Health Canada’s review of fluoridated water[i] failed to identify even one
      double-blinded, randomized prospective clinical trial to prove the fluoridation
      works.” Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry University of Toronto

    • One thing a councillor in Windsor mentioned is that the early evidence of fluoridation efficacy looked at naturally occurring Calcium Fluoride CaF – and somewhere along the line there was a ‘bait and switch’ to today’s hazardous waste grade fluoridation chemical H2SiF6 – no calcium to be found. He said that fluoride was getting the credit for what calcium was responsible for.
      To consider the difference in these two compounds – look at what the LD50 is for each of them. One is safe to hold in your hands while the other eats through glass and concrete and requires a hazmat suit to handle.

    • That kind of anecdotal evidence is meaningless. I was born and raised with fluoridated water, using fluoride toothpaste, and I have 10 fillings. There are plenty of others like me.

    • All anecdotal and subjective, none of which is born out in science and general statistics. We present you science. Do your due diligence, get the peer reviewed double-blind studies, and stop being irresponsible and criminally negligent.

  21. its says “DO NOT SWALLOW” on the back of toothpaste tubes for a reason

  22. When I learned that the water in Toronto is deliberately poisoned with fluoride I was shocked. In Europe there is no such a practice. What a shame to poison your own citizens believing in some old school scientists who reject to accept the mountain of new research showing how toxic the fluoride is. Just a reminder that the fluoridation of water was introduced by the Nazis to make the citizens of conquered counties stupid and obedient.

  23. “Those opposed to fluoride are equally organized and determined,
    driven by the belief that the medical establishment is ignoring recent

    Not a belief. A fact confirmed by experience. The medical establishment IS ignoring recent research and it has ignored that same and similar adverse research and more for decades…

    and science have been accumulated and presented over and over to
    medical “authorities” who even refuse to look at them for reasons only
    known to them: to speculate on their reasons would be as foolish as
    their refusal to look at the facts and science brought to their

    Lay people like myself have researched, read and
    presented 100’s of reports, peer reviewed article, and research by
    reputable researchers ridiculed by officialdom who protect the flawed
    fluoridation folly, and reputable PhDs and researchers have presented those facts and as well as their own, but to no avail.

    The continued
    negative characterization of advocates for cessation of this failed
    health initiative is unwarranted, unjustified and is witness to the
    sorry state of the poor investigative journalism like the above.

    health outcomes are so obviously tied to the presence of the Fluoride
    ion in the water that articles like the above are a most pathetic
    example of the reliance on propaganda and marketing that has been
    pervasively used for social engineering since after WW2.

    It’s time for this unproven, unnecessary and unethical practice to end because water is for everyone and Fluoride is not.

  24. ON APRIL 14, 1981, DR. DEAN BURKE, STATED ON A CANADIAN RADIO STATION, CFTR: “We estimate that since fluoridation was introduced into the U.S., there have been almost as many excess deaths associated with fluoridation as the sum total of all American military deaths since the founding of U.S.A. 1776. Now that’s an awful burden for pro-fluoridationists to bear if they can come to see that they have been responsible for this. The underlying clandestine force behind water fluoridation is a need by various industries to get rid of various toxic fluoride byproducts, about as tough to get rid of as radioactive wastes. The dentists are by and large pawns.”

  25. Yet another ill informed and spurious article that seeks to maintain a dangerous status quo, and vilifies those who seek to exercise pragmatic freedom of choice. It’s gratifying to see that the majority of posters here are rational, cogent thinkers, while the only opposition seems to be someone mired in the logical fallacy of the ad-hominem. Well done folks!

  26. The establishment rhetoric that continues to flow is deafening and extremely disappointing. If only the proponents would read THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE and get up to speed on the latest science, water fluoridation would be soon where it should be- relegated to the graveyard of failed and harmful medical practices.

    Dr. Peter Cooney has spoken so many mistruths in the areas of water fluoridation and mercury amalgams that I am amazed that he is still in his highly paid and powerful position. But, this speaks to the sad fact that the old boy’s system still has way too much clout and credibility. No one, and I repeat no one, is doing safety studies on this highly toxic substance. To state that Dr. Cooney descended on the town with stacks of safety evidence is blatantly false as this evidence simply doesn’t exist! Get up to speed, folks, and start reporting the facts before more of our children and the vulnerable in our society are harmed. drbob

  27. everyone i am so happy that celebrating this past Christmas with my husband after leaving me for about 5months and i never thought he was going to come back again because he was with another woman which he said he love so much and ever since my life have never remain the same because i love him with all my heart and my kid was not having father to call on so one day i saw a testimony on the internet after i have read about what many people have said about so many spell cast i just chosen to contact for help and his quick respond was very well appreciated by me so he ask me to do somethings which i did and after 1day i receive a call from my husband telling me that he is going to come back home tomorrow and it was just like a dream to me we have been together for 2months and some days now and we are very happy together thanks to you Ekaka you are the best.

  28. What the fluoridistas refuse to acknowledge is that it is not about safe cost effective cavity prvention. It is about dumping something into the water supply which can’t be removed and which half the population is sceptical about or outright afraid of. No one is talking about “removing” fluoride they are talking about stopping puttting it in. If we were talking about LSD or contraceptives the debate would be over. Safe drinking water is everyone’s right, drinking water you feel safe about is too.

  29. Hmm. With fluoridation in place I had no cavities for many years. They stopped it and now I have had many. Maybe we should next stop sanitizing the sewers. Yellow fever was fun I hear.

  30. I have yet to see a peer reviewed double blind study that says fluoride is not a neurotoxin. Fluoride is not safe.

    I dare anyone to distill 4 litres of fluoridated city water and drink the last ounce of what has not yet evaporated.

  31. Macleans is a propaganda clearing house. No wonder nobody reads it.

  32. While the proponents, such as the writer of this article, continue to claim no harm and that we are actually talking about ‘fluoride’ as a natural product, the fact is that (a) it is NOT fluoride they are putting into the water. They are putting Hydrofluorosilisilic Acid, an EPA Class 1 Hazardous Waste and so hazardous due to its pH and co-contaminants (arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium) that it is prohibited from being released into the Sewer System in Ottawa by law. But the real point of the practice is that it violates our right NOT to be medicated against our will, to withdraw consent, to be fully informed and not to be subjected to bait and switch misinformation from those very institutions that are legally bound to keep us fully informed. I don’t care if it is proven to turn teeth to gold…if I don’t want it in my drinking water, I should not be forced to drink it.

    Fluoridation was started in secret by the President of the Eugenics Society of Canada in 1945 (Brantford). That should tell you everything you need to know. While they reference the Canadian Dental Association, they leave out that in 1993 the CDA itself officially said that after 50 years of poisoning people, there is no evidence whatever that the practice prevents tooth decay or strengthens tooth enamel. However the epidemic of dental fluorosis that can be caused ONLY by fluoride toxicity is an extremely lucrative source of income for dentists….far more lucrative then filling a cavity once in a while! Fluoridation launched the cosmetic dentistry industry.

    It is also notable that the Ottawa Chief Medical Officer indicates that there are some segments of the population that will be harmed by the practice and further, that it is there own responsibility to avoid toxicity by buying expensive reverse-osmosis to remove the substance from the water. That alone tells any 1/2 thinking Canadian that we have moved into a place of complete idiocracy if we are now having to defend ourselves against this kind of tyranny.

    In comparisons of the dental cavity rates in Toronto (fluoridated) vs. Vancouver (never fluoridated), Vancouver showed the lower rate and obviously the lower rate of disfigurement (permanent mottling of the teeth and damage to the skeleton). Our teeth are not in our stomachs, so it is sheer lunacy to ingest poison.

    Health Canada is a corporate shill, so often backing damaging drugs, vaccines and practices that they are actually dangerous to the Canadian public. Any one living in a democracy should be outraged at being force-fed a toxic substance, not only fluoride, but the arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury that comes with this acid. That Health Canada can in the same breath admit that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis but at the same time claim they have the right to decide for others if they want to be subjected to the risk of permanent tooth damage shows the extent to which Nazism and eugenicism is still alive and well in Canada.

    Drinking fluoridated water is the equivalent of licking the soot from the scrubbers inside the chimneys of fertilizer manufacturing…plain and simple. This acid that they release into the water is listed in the Clinical Toxicology Commerical Substances Handbook. If people want to ingest soot, fine, do it alone. As with those who smoke, we don’t all need to smoke with you.

    Only greedy, very sick human beings would ever claim that a toxic substance suddenly turns into a medical treatment that has to be forced on us, despite the disfigurement and diseases it has caused so many millions of people.

    Fluoridation was never a good idea even in 1953 and ethical dentists were suppressed and there is a historical note available on-line where the President of the US Dental Association paraphrased the Hitler lie theory then….if you tell a lie, tell a really big one, make it a really, really big lie, so that few people will bother to uncover it, repeat the lie often, until it is accepted as fact.

    Well folks, facts are stubborn things. They don’t suddenly manifest because somebody creates a big lie and uses the trust people have in them to treat them as less than insects to be disposed of after thousands of dollars in otherwise unnecessary ‘treatments’ have been extracted from their pockets.

  33. I totally agree Grace, It just amazes me that there are proponents to putting Fluoride in our water. Even if we were to say that it does prevent tooth decay, the bottom line is that it shouldn’t be put in the water supply. Sell it in stores for people to purchase if they so CHOOSE! Since Fluoride is so great….why stop there? Why not put statins in the water supply to reduce chloesterol, or antidepressants in the water to diminish the possibility of suicide, or why don’t we throw in low levels of weed to make us all a bit more relaxed?? lol In the end, Fluoride does not prevent what brushing and caring for your teeth will provide. Because of this nonsense, and because our water supplies are in such great dangers. I’ve decided the best thing I can do for me and my son is to get a great filter that filters out the widest range of chemicals, efficiently and cost-effectively.

    I’ve done alot of research on this and I could only find one company’s results that I could verify. It’s been really hard to find companies that are truly reputable when it comes to their fluoride removal claims. A lot of companies claim NSF accreditation, but one must be very careful about that and know exactly what the certification is for. Most of the time it does not measure how well the filter removes contaminants.

    Just thought I would pass on my findings as I have been researching for myself to ensure we get a quality filter that does what it claims from a reputable company. There is a small company out of New York that I found that has a filtration system (I’m referring to their under the counter ‘ultra’ version…though they have several other configurations) that removes fluoride, prescription drugs, and even radiation via Zeolite. It even raises the alkalinity of the water. They have an independent test done by a nationwide lab analysis company and I also contacted the lab personally to ensure that this company was reputable and that the lab results were not fabricated……anyhow it all checked out. Anyhow, check out the website as it has lots of interesting articles and info, and contact them if you have questions as I did. I think they have an excellent filter …good luck. Here is the link, and if you notice their customer reviews are all top notch, the best that I can find…………………

    • I wander why you should pay for the filtering system out of your pocket. The municipal government should cover it. Alternatively they can stop putting fluoride in the municipal water supply, which would be much cheaper on the taxpayers.

      • Well I do agree that the municipal government should cover it. But the reality is that they simply cannot be trusted/depended on to ensure that the water is as clean as I would like to have it. So I’m better off to make sure that I know what it is Im getting when I put that water up to my mouth to drink it.

  34. I don’t want to be medicated without my consent period. The fluoride being good-bad is irrelevant. Forced fluoridation is against my basic human right. Municipalities should make fluoride available for FREE to those, who choose to self medicate and any member of the dental association can prescribe it to the individuals who do.


  36. Its too obvious that these articles are pro fluoridation and do not take a neutral stance. Why ingest fluoride when we already have it in our toothpase? Why that need for more fluoride? It’s profit for whoever sells the fluoride. It makes sense. That’s why people blame capitalism. Not to mention the fact that some dumbass who puts this stuff in the water supply could simply put too much accidentally and poison a bunch of people. Why continue debating that fluoride is good? Too much isn’t good, stop trying to brainwash us!!!

  37. Why do we need to “ingest” fluoride to protect our teeth?

    Doesn’t toothpaste deliver fluoride directly to our teeth and minimizes the risks of bioaccumulation in the rest of our body?