IQ Loss: Economic cost to society
By Paul Connett
Director, Fluoride Action Network
In a nation besieged by neurological disorders both in young children and the elderly, minimizing exposures to known neurotoxic substances should be a public health priority.
Based on the first-ever “mother-offspring” studies funded by three U.S. government agencies (National Institutes of Heath, Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) the critical period of exposure to fluoride as far as neurological damage is concerned was during pregnancy. The researchers found that the typical range of adult exposure to fluoride in fluoridated communities could lower the IQ of pregnant women’s offspring by up to 6 IQ points (Bashash et al., 2017).
At the population level a downward shift of 5 IQ points this could halve the number of very bright children in our society (IQ > 130) and increase by over 50% the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).
At the individual level the last children that need their IQ lowered are children from low-income communities, who are precisely the children targeted for water fluoridation.
Since 200 million Americans now live in areas where water is fluoridated, and since virtually all Americans consume processed foods and beverages made with fluoridated water, any reduction in IQ from consumption of fluoride-treated water stands to have very large social and economic consequences.
Studies have shown that even a loss of a single IQ point causes an average drop in lifetime earnings of $22,250 in current dollars.
According to the Petition to U.S. EPA1 to end the use of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water:
“Last paragraph on page 25: The reduction in IQ associated with fluoride exposure has been found to be severe enough in some children to produce mental retardation. (E.g., Lin et al. 1991). But even the loss of a single IQ point is associated with significant economic loss. As calculated by Spadaro et al. (2008), a loss of a single IQ point causes an average drop in lifetime earnings of $18,000 in 2005 U.S. dollars, which, when adjusted for inflation, amounts to $22,250 in current dollars.51 Since 200 million Americans now live in areas where water is fluoridated,52 and since virtually all Americans consume processed foods and beverages made with fluoridated water, any reduction in IQ from consumption of fluoride-treated water stands to have very large economic consequences.
“In 2010, there were 74 million children under the age of 18 living in the U.S., of which we can estimate roughly 50 million were living in fluoridated areas.(53 at page 24)
“Even if only sentinel or susceptible populations in fluoridated areas suffer IQ loss, the economic impacts will still be substantial.
“If we conservatively assume that only 1 to 5% of children in a fluoridated area suffer any IQ loss, and even if this IQ loss averaged just 1 IQ point,(54 at page 24) this would still amount to 500,000 to 2,500,000 lost IQ points, with a total loss in lifetime earnings ranging from $11.1 billion to $55.6 billion for this generation alone.”
1. Connett M. 2016. Petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2620, to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. November 22.
Note: For more information, see the section Monetary Consequences of a “Small” Effect on Cognition, at the bottom of page 526 to 527, from Critical Periods of Vulnerability for the Developing Nervous System: Evidence from Humans and Animal Models, by Rice & Barone (2000), Environmental Health Perspectives, 108:Supplement 3. June.
For more info on the “mother-offspring” studies, use the links in the pop-down menu at the top
The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation
[caption id="attachment_10205" align="alignleft" width="190"] Paul Connett, PhD[/caption] Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so "safe and effective" that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms
Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF-hKlIgCuM April, 2000 To whom it may concern: Since April of 1999, I have publicly decried the addition of fluoride, especially hydrofluosilicic acid, to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. The following summarize my reasons. New evidence for lack of effectiveness of fluoridation in modern times. [caption id="attachment_10211" align="alignleft" width="150"] Dr. Hardy
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
Introduction [caption id="attachment_11821" align="alignleft" width="200"] Dr. Paul Connett[/caption] In Europe, only Ireland (73%), Poland (1%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), and the U.K. (11%) fluoridate any of their water. Most developed countries, including Japan and 97% of the western European population, do not consume fluoridated water. In the U.S., about 70% of public water supplies are
Fluoride & IQ: The 53 Studies
As of June 2018, a total of 60 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 53 studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans, while
Fluoride's Effect on Fetal Brain
The human placenta does not prevent the passage of fluoride from a pregnant mother's bloodstream to the fetus. As a result, a fetus can be harmed by fluoride ingested pregnancy. Based on research from China, the fetal brain is one of the organs susceptible to fluoride poisoning. As highlighted by the excerpts
Fluoride's Neurobehavioral Effects in Humans & Animals
In addition to studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ in humans, and impaired learning/memory in animals, human and animal studies have also linked fluoride to a variety of other neurobehavioral effects. These studies, which are excerpted below, provide yet further evidence that fluoride is a neurotoxin. The importance of considering other
Email Exchange with FDA re: Fluoride Supplements
Email exchange regarding FDA's reasons for not approving fluoride supplements.
Harvard's Statement on Chester Douglass/Scientific Misconduct
Statement Concerning the Outcome of the Review into Allegations of Research Misconduct Involving Fluoride Research BOSTON-August 15, 2006-The Harvard Medical School and School of Dental Medicine (HSDM) review of Chester Douglass, DMD, PhD, professor of oral health policy and epidemiology at HSDM, has concluded that Douglass did not intentionally omit, misrepresent,
The 'Altered Recommendations' of the 1983 Surgeon General's Panel
"We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon Generals panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon Generals panel were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride."
Related Miscellaneous Content: