NOTE: This page is currently under construction Please check back soon for updates. In the meantime, we have provided some introductory quotes and links.
“[T]he political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues.” - Dr. Edward Groth, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union, 1991.
“Journal editors often have refused for political reasons to publish information that raises questions about fluoridation.” - Chemical & Engineering News, August 1, 1988.
“We are left with compelling evidence that powerful interests with high financial stakes have colluded to prematurely close honest discussion and investigation into fluoride toxicity.” - Dr. Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts University, August 16, 2004.
“The Public Health Service, unfortunately, has locked itself into a position where it has made this statement on the record that there is absolutely no hazard to fluoridating public water supplies and the matter is closed. Now, that, of course, is immediately an unscientific approach.” - Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, 1971.
OVERVIEWS: Suppression of Scientific Dissent in Fluoridation Debate:
- Suppressed Science: A Stain on Society
- Professional Attack
- Is Science Censored?
- The Promotion of Water Fluoridation: An Historical Overview
Specific Cases of Politics Trumping Science:
- EPA’s Decision to Weaken Fluoride Safety Standard
- The Altered Recommendations of the Surgeon General’s Medical Committee
- FDA’s Failure to Regulate Fluoride Supplements
- Harvard’s Fluoride Bone Cancer Research
SPECIFIC CASES of Scientists Being Fired for Raising Concerns:
Harvard Scientist Criticizes Wichita Paper’s Whitewash of Fluoride/IQ Study
Dr. Philippe Grandjean, the senior scientist on the Harvard team, has criticized the Wichita Eagle for deceptively attributing its own conclusions on fluoridation to the Harvard scientists. Fluoridation’s potential to produce “chemical brain drain,” Grandjean writes, is an issue that “definitely deserves concern.”
Why Not Debate?
The Fluoride Action Network would like to applaud the editors at the Salt Lake Tribune for their editorial concerning fluoridation proponents' unwillingness to debate the issue they so enthusiastically endorse (see below). This "No Debating" policy of proponents is an insult to both science and democracy and it is encouraging
The Promotion of Water Fluoridation: An Historical Overview
...Three historical cases of major technological innovations whose benefits and risks were the subject of heated public controversy are examined, in search of lessons that may suggest a path toward consensus in the biotechnology debate. In each of the cases-water fluoridation, nuclear power and pesticides-proponents of the technology gathered scientific
A Critique of Gelberg's Study on Fluoride/Osteosarcoma in New York
The case-control study by Gelberg, published first as a PhD dissertation and then later in two peer-reviewed journals, may represent the most substantive study on fluoride/osteosarcoma previous to Bassin’s 2001 analysis. In assessing Gelberg’s data, we were at first struck by the existence of several notable errors in both the thesis and papers. While these errors do raise questions about the study, our primary concern with Gelberg’s work relates to the methods she used to analyze her data.
Fluoride & Osteosarcoma: A Timeline
Several human epidemiological studies have found an association between fluoride in drinking water and the occurrence of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young males. These studies are consistent with the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) cancer bioassay which found that fluoride-treated male rats had an dose-dependent increase in osteosarcoma. Although a number of studies have failed to detect an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma, none of these studies have measured the risk of fluoride at specific windows in time, which based on recent results, is the critical question with respect to fluoride and osteosarcoma.
Fluoride & Liver Cancers in NTP Bioassay
On October 28, 1988, Battelle Columbus Laboratories submitted its Final Report to the NTP concerning the results of the Mouse study. The principal finding of Battelle's report was that a dose-dependent increase of a rare liver cancer (hepatocholangiocarcinoma) had occurred in the fluoride-treated male and female mice.
Dáil Éireann Debate: The fluoridation of water supplies (Repeal) Bill 2013: Second Stage [Private Members]
Deputy Clare Daly: I found the Minister of State's tone unhelpful. It is a progressive move for us to discuss this topic today and I compliment Deputy Stanley on tabling the Bill. Despite the Minister of State's protestations, from the beginning of Ireland's attempts to fluoridate our water, this has been
Fluoridation Forum Report Flunks Test
Finally the Fluoridation Forum report is out (September 10, 2002) and can be found at http://www.doh.ie/publications/fluoridation.html. As expected they flunked my test. I had presented to the Forum (in person) my "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation" and argued that the way they could demonstrate to me and the Irish people that
Interview with EPA's Dr. William Marcus on NTP's Fluoride/Cancer Study
The following is an interview with Dr. William Marcus, Senior Science Advisor in EPA's Office of Drinking Water, concerning the National Toxicology Program's animal study on fluoride & cancer.
Related Miscellaneous Content: