The Fluoride Action Network has published the press release below. Please email the PR Newswire version of our release to you local decision makers and the news editors of the media outlets in your community, large and small (newspaper, radio, TV, online).
On Oct 22, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a draft review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity concluding:
“…Fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans. This conclusion is based on a consistent pattern of findings in human studies across several different populations showing that higher fluoride exposure is associated with decreased IQ or other cognitive impairments in children.”
For years the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has been drawing attention to fluoride’s neurotoxicity. There are 61 human IQ studies linking lowered IQ with fluoride exposure, many of which FAN had translated from the original Chinese.
[The following graphic is on page 21 of the NTP draft review.]
FAN disagrees with NTP’s conclusion that studies “with [fluoride] exposures in ranges typically found in the water distribution systems in the United States (i.e., approximately 0.03 to 1.5 ppm) …are inconsistent and therefore unclear (our emphasis).”
FAN’s director Paul Connett, PhD, says, “the studies funded by US government agencies (Bashash et al. 2017, 2018; Green et al., 2019) were at exposure levels commonly experienced with fluoride water concentrations below 1.5 ppm, and are consistent, very clear and stronger than the earlier Chinese studies at levels above 1.5 ppm (Choi et al, 2012) because they were based on individual exposures, with many confounding variables carefully controlled. In reality, it is the studies with lower fluoride levels of exposure that have provided the strongest evidence.”
Connett continued, “We hope that, when the National Academy of Sciences completes its peer review, NTP will raise the classification of fluoride to a ‘known‘ from ‘presumed’ neurodevelopmental hazard to humans. Whether they do or not, the weight of scientific evidence in the NTP review should be sufficient to force an end to fluoridation.”
Dr. William Hirzy, former Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment specialist, says, “Damage at a concentration of 1.5 ppm in water offers no meaningful margin of safety to protect the brains of a whole population of infants drinking fluoridated water at 0.7 ppm. Without going into detailed calculations of total dose, a safety factor of ten (to account for the expected range of sensitivity in a large populations), would reduce the allowed level in water to less than 0.1 ppm in water.”
Connett asks, “How can anyone now claim that community water fluoridation is safe? And why allow it to continue when safer and more effective programs (e.g., Childsmile) exist?”