We’re told fluoride is good for our teeth but that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Now I know many of you have never questioned this and are very skeptical, so all I ask is for you to read this with an OPEN mind. Up until this point, you’ve been told what to think about fluoride. So it’s time for YOU to decide.
Plus there’s no shame in changing your mind – especially after you read all these reasons.
This post was inspired by Dr. Paul Connet. A pioneer in exposing the truth about fluoride.
69 Reasons To Oppose Adding Fluoride To Water
1) Fluoride’s benefit is topical, not systemic
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has gone on record and stated that the main way fluoride works is through contact with teeth and not through ingestion.1,2 This means there is zero reason to swallow fluoride in order to protect teeth.
To put it another way, swallowing fluoride to prevent cavities makes as much sense as swallowing sunscreen lotion to prevent sun burns.
2) Fluoride is poison, just look at a tube of fluoride toothpaste
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires all fluoride toothpaste sold in the USA to be labeled with a poison warning, instructing those that swallow more than is used for brushing to contact the Poison Control Center (pictured below).
But shouldn’t there also be a warning on fluoridated water?
I say this because swallowing 5ml of toothpaste (“more than is used for brushing”) with a typical toothpaste that contains 1000pm of fluoride would equal to 5mg of fluoride swallowed.
This would be a similar amount of fluoride if an individual drinks an average amount of water (4 liters a day) with an average amount of fluoride (1 ppm). Which would equal to 4mg of total fluoride ingested.
Does that mean I should call the Poison Control Center or at the very least, be concerned?
Now let’s not forget, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set the maximum contaminant level for fluoride at 4 ppm.3 Which means you could be drinking a lot more fluoride than 1 ppm.
And we haven’t even considered all the other sources of fluoride that would contribute to increasing our daily fluoride total.
3) Fluoride is a toxic industrial by-product
The most common type of fluoride used for water fluoridation is fluorosilicic acid and is well known as a chemical “byproduct” of the aluminum, steel, cement, and phosphate industries.4
Don’t believe me? I don’t blame you.
So here’s a photo of the other two types of fluoride added to our water, sodium fluorosilicate (left) and sodium fluoride (right):
But like I mentioned, the most common one is fluorosilicic acid and just so you don’t think I’m some crazy conspiracy theorist, here’s a screenshot of the EPA website that says fluoride is “discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories”:4
Now whether one says “discharge”, “byproduct” or “industrial waste” – it all means the same thing.
I say this because something like fluorosilicic acid would have to be discarded as hazardous waste. But instead, these industries turn a profit selling it to our government which they then put in our water.
Oh and fluoridation chemicals often come from China, a country that has BANNED water fluoridation in their own country but happily export their fluoride waste to the USA.
4) The fluoride in your water is not pharmaceutical grade
Considering the chemicals used in water fluoridation are industrial waste, it should go without saying that they are not pharmaceutical grade and do NOT go through a purification procedure.
This means it’s not 100% fluoride.
Which oftentimes can contain impurities like lead, arsenic, mercury and sometimes uranium.
For example, recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation has suggested the levels of arsenic in these types of fluoride are relatively high and can reach up to 1.6 ppb after being added into public water.5
For your information, arsenic is a known human carcinogen (substance that causes cancer) and the EPA has determined that there are NO safe levels of arsenic.6
5) Fluoride is NOT an essential nutrient
No disease is caused by a lack of fluoride, not even tooth decay. In addition, there is not a SINGLE biological process that requires fluoride.7,8,9
In other words, your body does not need fluoride to function.
While on the other hand you have vitamin D that controls the expression of 1000+ genes and over 70% of people in the USA are deficient in, which leads to increased depression, increased aging, immune dysfunction – just to name a few.10
And how can I forget, adequate vitamin D levels are vital for good oral health.11,12
Yet no government program promotes vitamin D the way fluoride is promoted… I wonder why?
6) Your teeth contain LESS than 2% fluoride
You’d think from everything we’re told, our teeth are filled with fluoride and that’s why it’s so important.
But your teeth contain less than 2% fluoride.13
So not only is fluoride not an essential nutrient but it’s essentially non-existent in our teeth.
So how does it make any sense to focus on fluoride, while ignoring the rest of the tooth? Especially when you consider 95% of the tooth is made of two specific minerals that most Americans are deficient in (more on this in #63).
7) Adding fluoride to water is not necessary
Most western and modern countries have rejected water fluoridation but have experienced the same decline in childhood dental cavities as fluoridated countries (see graph below).
8) No fluoride, no problem
7 of the top 10 countries with the best dental health reject water fluoridation and take the top two spots.14 To measure a country’s overall dental health, researchers and dentists use the DMFT index which measures the average “decayed, missing, and filled permanent teeth”.
While the countries with the highest percentage of people receiving fluoridated water: Australia (89%)15, Chile (70.5%)16, United States (63%)17, New Zealand (60%)18, and Canada (38%)19– are nowhere to be found on this list.
Note: the UK only has 10% drinking fluoridated water, so you can essentially consider them a fluoridation-free country.20
9) 98% of Europe does NOT add fluoride to its water
Water fluoridation is one of the most rejected health programs in the world. In fact, only 24 countries have any fluoridation and around 95% of the world is fluoridation-free. While Europe, with it’s high health standards, is 98% free of water fluoridation.16
Now thankfully, more and more cities around the world are rejecting the practice each year.
However, in the USA water fluoridation continues to grow and in fact, the USA has 207 million people receiving fluoridated water out of the 372 million people worldwide (more than half of the total people receiving fluoridated water worldwide).16,17
Makes you wonder…
Why is fluoride added to the water disproportionately more in the USA than anywhere else in the world?
10) Many countries have BANNED water fluoridation
Many countries have not just rejected fluoridation but outright BANNED it (China, Israel, Japan, Sweden, and others).
The most notable and recent example comes from Israel where around 70% of its population was drinking fluoridated water until Israeli authorities introduced a countrywide ban in 2014. Which has stayed put to this very day (August 2021).21
This comes after 40 years of water fluoridation and goes to show it’s never too late to change your mind.
11) No significant correlation between fluoride ingestion and tooth decay
A multi-million dollar study funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) found no significant correlation between cavities and fluoride intake among children.22
This is the first time tooth decay has been investigated based on a person’s fluoride exposure.
Unlike other times where living in a fluoridated community was the differentiating factor.
12) Low income communities that have had fluoride added to their water for years, still have high tooth decay
Low income communities in US cities such as Boston, New York City, Cincinnati, and Pittsburg have had their water fluoridated for 20+ years, yet still experience high rates of tooth decay.23, 24, 25, 26, 27
Truth is, there is no magic cure to tooth decay that can overcome the effects poverty, bad nutrition, poor dental habits and a lack of access to dental care, have on your dental health.
13) Nothing bad happens when you STOP water fluoridation
When water fluoridation programs have been discontinued in many communities around the world ranging from Canada, former East Germany, Finland and Cuba – dental decay has not increased but has generally continued to decrease. 28, 29, 30
For example, in the late 1980s, 3.4 million people in East Germany had fluoride added to their water and were supplemented with fluoride tablets.31
Now in the cities of Chemnitz, Plauen, Zittau, and Spremberg, children took part in a study that kept track of tooth decay. What was found, was that the rate of cavities continued to drop after the fluoride levels were lowered from 1.0 ppm to it’s natural levels just under 0.2 ppm.30, 32
14) Tooth decay was decreasing BEFORE fluoridation started
If we take a look at Australia and New Zealand, research shows us that rates of tooth decay have been decreasing before water fluoridation was introduced. In addition, rates have continued to decrease even after fluoride’s “benefits” would have been maximized. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37
This goes to show us that there are many other factors that are responsible for the universal decline in tooth decay throughout the western world.
15) The studies that launched fluoridation were poorly done
The studies done between 1945 and 1955 that helped launch water fluoridation across the USA and are referenced to this day, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and choice of control communities.38, 39, 40, 41
According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddle headedness and hebetude.”42
16) Fluoridation chemicals have NOT been tested comprehensively
The type of fluoride often used in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, NOT industrial grade fluorosilicic acid.
17) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment
The FDA classifies a substance a drug when it is used to prevent or mitigate disease.43
Thus fluoride being added to water for the main purpose of preventing tooth decay is a form of medical treatment, which means fluoride is a drug. While the other chemicals added to water are done so under the goal of improving water quality or safety.
18) No informed consent with water fluoridation
Fluoridation violates your right to informed consent to medical treatment (one of the main reasons water fluoridation programs are rejected in Europe).
The right ensures individuals have the freedom to make choices about their medical care. And places the responsibility of making a choice in the patient’s hand, not the doctors.
In most cases, people have no clue there is fluoride in their water. Let alone what fluoride is and it’s possible negative effects.
19) The dose is not controlled
Due to the nature of water fluoridation, it is impossible to control the dose each person receives. Some people drink more water than others. Not to mention, all the other sources of fluoride people are exposed to (more on this soon).
Imagine a medication you’re given but not told how much to take?
It does not exist. If you want proof, walk into any pharmacy and ask a pharmacist if they have any medication that an individual does not need to be told how much to take.
20) Fluoridation does not consider an individuals needs
Water fluoridation does not account for a person’s age, health, or vulnerability. So building upon the last point, since the dose is not controlled – it’s impossible to safely and effectively deliver it to the people.
A baby gets the same dose as a full grown adult dose. A person with a bad kidney (that can not remove toxins efficiently) get’s the same amount as the person who has perfectly functioning kidneys.
So it begs the question, who is this dose “optimal” for?
And as you’ll see, this one issue leads to many negative consequences and health effects.
21) People are exposed to many other sources of fluoride besides water
Fluoride in water is not the only way people are exposed to fluoride.
In fact, it may not be the largest source either.
Other sources of fluoride include:
- fluoride in tea (some teas can contain up to 7X the fluoride found in tap water),
- food and beverages processed with fluoridated water,
- mechanically deboned meat,44
- food that absorbs fluoride from polluted soil and water,
- fluoridated dental products,45,46 and
- pesticide residues on food47,48
Now considering fluoride exposure from non-water sources has increased since fluoridation has began49 and likely continues to grow, it’s safe to assume most people are ingesting too much fluoride.
22) Lack of monitoring for fluoride exposure or side effects
There is not a single health agency in any fluoridated country that is currently and regularly taking measurements of fluoride levels in urine, blood or bones in the general population or those who are at higher risk of fluoride toxicity.
23) Not a single randomized controlled trial has been conducted to prove fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety
Fluoride has been added to water for more than 70 years, yet not ONE single randomized control trial has been conducted over that time.50
Why is this a big deal?
Well randomized control trials are the gold standard in judging the effectiveness and safety of any medical treatment.
And to add insult to injury, in the year 2000, the British government’s “York Review” was unable to give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite the several decades of research.51
24) Fluoride is not F.D.A. approved for ingestion
The FDA has never approved any fluoride supplements as safe and effective.52
Which were and are still prescribed to millions of children, in order to provide children living in non-fluoridated areas the same amount of fluoride they would receive drinking an average amount of fluoridated water.
Keep in mind, what we have added to our water is usually fluorosilicic acid (industrial hazardous waste) while pharmaceutical grade fluoride is included in many supplements. Imagine what the FDA would think about fluorosilicic acid?
25) Fluoride accumulates in the body
The kidneys of healthy young children only excrete around 20% of consumed fluoride and adults range from 50 to 60%.53,54,55 That means the rest of the fluoride is free to travel through your blood and accumulate in calcifying tissues such as the pineal gland and bones.56,57
Which oftentimes results in total body fluoride levels increasing over a lifetime.58
Yet we’re told a non-natural, non-essential, and hazardous/industrial by-product that accumulates in our bodies is nothing to worry about?
26) Fluoride leads to dental fluorosis, a possible first-sign of fluoride toxicity
Dental fluorosis is the lack of calcium in teeth that leads to visual changes in enamel, causing varying levels of discoloration and in some cases, damage to teeth.
All caused by the ingestion of too much fluoride during the first 8 years of life when enamel is formed.59
Now while pro-fluoride people dismiss the milder forms of dental fluorosis as something that is purely “cosmetic”, it would be foolish to think fluoride is not affecting other developing parts of the body. Especially when it is visibly damaging the teeth by some biochemical mechanism.33, 60
Furthermore, while there may be a small window for teeth to be damaged.
Other tissues can be damaged throughout your life (more on this below).
27) Fluoride may cause brain damage
Fluoride’s ability to damage the brain is one of the most actively researched areas of fluoride research today. With over 400+ studies pointing towards fluoride being a neurotoxin (chemical that can cause damage to the brain).
This has led the National Research Council to go on record and state “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain”.49
While in a review authorized by the EPA, fluoride was listed alongside 100 other chemicals where there is “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity”.63
28) Fluoride lowers IQ
At the time of writing this, there are 69 studies that have found elevated fluoride exposure is associated with lowered IQ in humans. Of these 69 studies, IQ examinations were taken of 26,142 children and 245 adults.64
But since we don’t have all day, let me tell you about the Bashash study.
A study that was funded by the following U.S. agencies: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA. So in this study, authors from several universities across Canada, the U.S, and Mexico, followed over 300 mother-child pairs in Mexico City for a 12-year period.
Uncovering a strong relationship between the mothers’ exposure to fluoride (measured through their urine) and lowered IQ in their offspring at 4 and again at 6-12 years of age.
The fluoride urine levels found in the pregnant women in the study are the same found in pregnant women in the U.S (0.5 to 1.5 ppm). At those levels the authors concluded a loss of 6 IQ points.65
29) Fluoride may cause autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, and other cognitive impairments
Fluoride has earned a place in the prestigious medical journal called The Lancet, as one of only 11 chemicals that are known to damage the developing brain.66
The researchers from Harvard University commented on their findings:
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain”.67
Furthermore, recent and emerging research rightly puts fluoride among developmental neurotoxins that are capable of causing various brain disorders such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disabilities, and other cognitive impairments.68
30) Fluoride damages the pineal gland
Surprisingly, one of the most shared articles on Truth About Fluoride is fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland (link to article).
But what is the pineal gland?
Well it’s main role is to make and release the hormone melatonin.69
Which plays a important role in how well you sleep and helps protect the body from cell damage caused by free radicals.70,71,72 But as shown by British scientist, Jenifer Luke, with too much fluoride – fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and calcifies it.73
Once the pineal gland is calcified, it causes it to become in/underactive.73
This leads to poor sleep, early puberty in females (increases the risk for breast cancer), increased oxidative stress due to the lack of melatonin which is a powerful antioxidant (oxidative stress and lack of sleep is linked to neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson disease, and Huntington disease).74-80
The pineal gland is also known as the “third eye” and regarded as the gateway of spiritual life (no wonder so many spiritual people visit Truth About Fluoride).
31) Fluoride effects thyroid function
According to the U.S. National Research Council, there is significant evidence that fluoride exposure can affect thyroid function in some individuals.49 In fact, fluoride was once prescribed as an anti-thyroid drug, to reduce the activity of thyroid gland.81
Now you’re going to think I’m joking…
According to clinical research, the amount of fluoride that is capable of reducing thyroid function is quite low (2 to 5 mg per day over several months).82 This amount is well within the range (1.6 to 6.6 mg/day) of what people in fluoridated communities are estimated to consume on a daily basis.83
And would you guess, the second most prescribed medication in the USA in 2018 was Levothyroxine (a drug used to treat an underactive thyroid gland (hypothyroidism).
With 105,773,990 total prescriptions and 19,448,097 total patients… in the USA alone.84
Symptoms of hypothyroidism (under active thyroid) include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, menstrual disturbances, impaired fertility, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.85,86
32) Fluoride depletes iodine levels and worsens the impact of iodine deficiency
Fluoride blocks iodine receptors so iodine can’t get absorbed and used by your body.
Now unlike fluoride, iodine is an essential nutrient that our bodies need to make thyroid hormones.
Thus when your body’s iodine level’s fall, hypothyroidism and its corresponding symptoms may develop.87
So thanks to fluoride, we have to keep in mind the effects a lack of iodine may cause. For example, when iodine is inadequate during pregnancies and early childhood, the child’s brain can suffer permanent damage including mental retardation (iodine deficiency is the leading cause of mental retardation worldwide).88
To put this into perspective, 11% of all Americans and more than 15% of American women of child-bearing age have urine iodine levels in the moderate to severe deficiency range.89 In addition to another 36% of U.S women who are considered mildly iodine deficient.
Lastly, animal and human research has shown fluoride exposure worsens the impact of an iodine deficiency.90-97 Plus, an iodine deficiency will also lower the threshold at which fluoride can cause health effects like damage to the brain and dental fluorosis.93,94,97,98
33) Fluoride may cause arthritis
The early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis (a bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in China, India, and Africa – caused by the ingestion of too much fluoride) closely resemble the symptoms of arthritis.83,99-103
This has lead many to believe, many people have been misdiagnosed with arthritis, instead of the early stages of skeletal fluorosis.104
And of course, countries that fluoridate their water have failed to investigate the extent of this possible misdiagnosis and whether or not the high rate of arthritis (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis) has anything to do with all the accumulated fluoride one would find within their body.105
Makes you think…
How are doctors supposed to ever diagnose skeletal fluorosis if they are not looking for it? Plus, we know how much Big Pharma loves the money they make off medication. So imagine if getting rid of your arthritis was as easy as eliminating fluoride from your life?
Now I’m not suggesting this will cure everyone’s symptoms but you’d be surprised how many people will see great improvements if not complete recovery.
34) Fluoride damages your bones
The majority of all fluoride ingested and that’s not excreted, gets taken out of your blood by being absorbed by your bones.106 When fluoride reacts with calcium in your bones, it forms calcium fluoride (CaF2).
Through this process, fluoride takes the place of naturally occurring calcium hydroxyapatite in the bone- changing normal bone formation and resorption.107 In other words, it replaces the natural and strong form of bone with a cheaper and weaker alternative (it’s like building a product in the USA vs China, “YUGE” quality difference).
Here’s a picture of what high levels of fluoride are doing to people in India:
Interestingly enough, fluoride’s main effect is to stimulate bone formation.108
However, bone made during the development of skeletal fluorosis is not of good quality compared to bone made in healthy conditions. Mainly due to the abnormal bone formation that results in increased density but decreased strength.109
35) Fluoride may lead to bone fractures
Once upon a time, pro-fluoride folks thought fluoride could be used to “build” bone.
But once high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used to harden the bones and reduce fracture rates in patients with osteoporosis. It was clear that this instead lead to a higher number of fractures, particularly hip fractures.110-120
While researchers out of the University of Toronto uncovered that the strength of bone declined with increasing fluoride content.121
So just like in #34, fluoride leads to increased density but decreased strength.
So you get more bone built but it’s weak.
36) Fluoride may cause bone cancer
Due to the following three factors it’s possible fluoride increases the likelihood of bone cancer:
- Fluoride accumulates in the bones.
- Fluoride stimulates bone growth.
- Fluoride interferes with the natural functioning of bone cells in a few ways; mutagenic effects, causes chromosome damage, and disrupts enzymes involved in DNA repair.122-126
This is why a U-S government-funded animal study found the more fluoride male rats were treated with, the higher chance it developed bone cancer.127
This was followed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewing national cancer data in the U.S and finding higher rates of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer) in young men who live in fluoridated areas compared to those in non-fluoridated areas.128
The NCI then followed up by concluding fluoridation was not the cause, yet no explanation was given to explain the higher rates in areas that were fluoridated.129
Lastly, to this day no proponent or fluoridating country has successfully addressed the Bassin-Osteosarcoma study. A study where Elise Bassin, a dentist, found young boys had a 5 to 7 times greater risk of getting osteosarcoma by the age of 20 if they drank fluoridated water between the ages of 6 to 8 (mid-childhood growth spurt).130
Now just think about this…
Even if you don’t get bone cancer, fractures or fluoride-induced arthritis, what kind of bone quality do you think one would have after a lifetime of fluoride exposure?
Well you don’t have to look too far, take a look at a majority of older individuals. They can barely walk… it’s a shame what’s been done to their health (thankfully, to a certain degree this is reversible)
37) Fluoride may cause infertility
Consistent with human research, 60+ animal studies have found that fluoride damages the male reproductive system by damaging sperm and increasing the likelihood of infertility.131
Now in all fairness, many of these animal studies have used high doses of fluoride.
However, there are a fair amount of studies that have shown effects on fertility at doses much lower and closer to what many people are exposed to.132-137 Most notably, in 2002 and 2006, researchers out of Poland have reported exposing ram semen to 0.38 ppm of fluoride for 5 hours was enough to negatively affect sperm quality.138
Furthermore, there’s a study that found increased infertility among couples who live in the US, in areas that have 3ppm or more fluoride in their water (levels that are higher than tap water but still within the EPA’s “safe” range).139
Considering this and many other studies, it’s lead the National Research Council to give out the following statement “the relationship between fluoride and fertility requires additional study”.49
38) Fluoride may decrease testosterone
For my gym brothers, five studies have found reduced levels of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas.140-144
Now the thing is, your testosterone may be impacted in an indirect fashion.
Since your body and all it’s parts are interconnected. If one important part is not functioning properly, the rest of the body will be affected. So when fluoride affects your overall hormones, it most likely will affect your testosterone.
For example, fluoride’s negative effect on the pineal gland can lead to poor sleep (quality sleep is needed for healthy and optimal testosterone levels). Or fluoride’s negative affect on the thyroid can affect the thyroid-stimulating hormone which plays an important role in altering levels of free and bound testosterone.145
Either way, with too much fluoride it’s almost certain, your testosterone will not be firing on all cylinders.
39) Fluoride can negatively affect your hormones
In 2006, the U.S National Research Council identified fluoride as a endocrine disruptor.49
Their report stated the following four glands can each be affected by fluoride exposure: thyroid gland, pancreas, pineal gland, and the parathyroid gland.
41) Millions of people may be allergic to fluoride
As far back as the 1950s, world-renowned allergist, George Wadbott, had uncovered through blind and double blind tests that many people experienced allergic reactions to ingested fluoride.146
These were the symptoms they experienced:
- fatigue (feeling tired)
- eczema (pictured below)
- stomach problems
- vomiting (shortly after consumption)
Yet when they eliminate fluoride in their water and diet, these symptoms go away.147,148,149
And then they come back when they are by accident exposed to fluoride again (Spittle).
To put this into perspective, in 1961 a 13-year study showed 1% of people given 1 mg of fluoride (equal to a around 1 liter of tap water) each day experience allergic reactions.150 Now it’s only fair to assume that percentage has increased, but even if we stay at 1% that would mean there is around 3,282,000 people allergic to fluoride in the USA today.
40) Fluoride can cause skin problems like acne
One of the most common symptoms of a fluoride allergy is acne, eczema and rashes.
In fact, in addition to ingesting fluoride, using fluoride-toothpaste has also been shown to cause an acne-like skin condition around the mouth and chin called perioral dermatitis (pictured below).151
42) Certain groups of people are more vulnerable to fluoride toxicity
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry the following groups of people are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity; infants, elderly, those with diabetes, and dealing with impaired kidney function.152
In addition, those who suffer from certain nutrient deficiencies (iodine, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and low-protein diets) are also at higher risk.53, 153-159
To put this into perspective, here are 3 key nutrients followed by the percentage of Americans that do not meet their daily requirement:
- Vitamin D (94.3%)
- Calcium (44.1%)
- Magnesium (52.2%)160
43) Children are getting too much fluoride
As mentioned, the first sign of fluoride toxicity is dental fluorosis (discoloration of tooth enamel caused by ingesting too much fluoride).
In basic English, it’s a sign that a child was exposed to too much fluoride.
And in 2010, the CDC reported 41% of children aged 12-15 in the USA had dental fluorosis.161
Now keep in mind 41% is the national average which includes both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, so we can assume the percentage is much larger in areas that are fluoridated.
44) Many children go OVER their “recommended” daily fluoride intake from toothpaste alone
Research shows some children swallow more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is recommended from all sources combined.162
Mix in the fact children toothpaste is flavored with flavors that tempt a child to swallow and many parents are unable to supervise them while brushing, it’s no wonder toothpaste is the largest source of fluoride intake for many children.
Thankfully, there’s no need to use fluoride toothpaste.
As in #68 we’ll touch on an alternative to fluoride toothpaste that is safe and just as effective.
45) Those with impaired kidney function are at an increased risk to bone damage
If a person’s kidney is not working at 100%, that means they get rid of less fluoride.
This leads to more fluoride circulating in their blood and thus, storing in their bones and pineal gland. Placing kidney patients at an increased risk for developing skeletal fluorosis.163
Bad news when you consider kidney disease affects 37 million Americans (15% of the adult population; more than 1 in 7 adults) and over 90% of them have no clue they have it. And to make things even worse, 1 in 3 adults in the U.S. (approximately 80 million) are at risk for kidney disease.164
46) Fluoride may increase lead uptake into blood
Several studies have shown fluoridated water caused an increased uptake of lead into children’s blood.165-168
This has been further backed by an animal study that found when rats were exposed to both fluorosilicic acid (the type of fluoride most commonly added to water) and lead in their drinking water, the uptake of lead into blood was 3 times higher compared to just lead alone.62
47) Fluoride may leach lead from pipes
Research has shown the fluoride added to tap water in combination with chlorine increase the leaching of lead from brass fittings used in plumbing.169
This means if you’re living in a home made with older pipes, you are at a higher risk of elevated lead expose.
Which by the way, is ranked as the 2nd most toxic substance in the world.170
48) Fluoride crosses the placenta, posing great danger to babies
The placenta does not stop fluoride from passing from the mothers blood to the baby. This leaves the baby vulnerable to any fluoride circulating in the mothers blood and especially puts the baby’s brain at risk.
As mentioned in other reasons this can lead to the following health effects:
- lowered IQ
- learning disabilities
- other cognitive impairments
49) Low-income families and individuals are hurt by fluoridation
Oddly enough, fluoridation is hurting the very same people it’s aimed at “helping”.
That’s because low income individuals are more likely to be deficient in key nutrients due to poor nutrition (eating healthy requires money) which would otherwise protect them from fluoride’s toxicity.
In addition, those who are low on cash by default are the least able to avoid fluoride once it’s added to their water (buying bottled water or a quality filter takes money). While most middle-class to upper class people don’t think twice about buying a water filter that removes fluoride once they hear the truth about fluoride.
But if you don’t have money, you have no choice but to drink it.
Now imagine that… a public policy that lowers the intelligence of those who are already at a disadvantage? Talk about one of the greatest social injustices there is.
50) Black and Mexican-American children are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity
According to the CDC, Black and Mexican-American children have much higher rates of dental fluorosis than white children.171
This could be due to various reasons, however, the reality is many of these children are also part of low-income families who as mentioned above, are less likely to be able to avoid drinking tap water.172
51) Minorities are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects
As seen through its effect on children, it’s clear that the black and Mexican-American population is hurt most by fluoride’s toxic effects.
Unfortunately, the most logical thing to assume is that they would also be most affected by fluoride’s other toxic effects.
Now, this can be for a number of reasons but when you take a look at Black Americans, they have higher rates of lactose intolerance, kidney problems, diabetes, and vitamin D deficiency. All of which make you more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity.
- Black Americans are 4X more likely to have kidney failure compared to white Americans173
- Diabetes (USA): 7.5% of non-Hispanic whites, 12.5% of Hispanics, 11.7% of non-Hispanic blacks, and 14.7% of American Indians174
- Inadequate vitamin D levels (USA): blacks 51.6%, Mexican Americans 24.4%, whites 9.4 %160
52) Tooth decay is a result of low-income not low-fluoride intake
Low income communities experience far more tooth decay. Oddly enough, the highest rates of tooth decay in the U.S can be found in low-income areas that have been fluoridated for many years.
This could be due to the lack of money leading to no to little dental coverage or the various reasons discussed above.
So here’s a genius idea…
Instead of putting toxic waste in their water… wouldn’t it be a good idea to promote policies that drive the creation of jobs?
By default, if you don’t have a job, how can you expect to pay for your own or your child’s dental costs, healthy food, or healthy drinking water? To boot, many jobs also offer dental coverage (talk about hitting two birds with one stone).
53) Fluoridation can harm the environment
I don’t know about you, but putting hazardous waste from the phosphate and aluminum industry into the environment does not sound very eco-friendly to me. It sounds like a great threat to wildlife, quality of soil and everything in between.
But that’s exactly what happens when a city, state or country decides to add fluoride to their water. It gets introduced to the environment through things like watering your lawn, farming, and discharge of sewage water into the environment.
In fact, several studies have found fluoride levels, at amounts lower than 0.7 ppm, has the potential to harm salmon and invertebrates.175 But what’s more surprising is that NO environmental assessment has ever been conducted AND not a single environmental organization has endorsed fluoridation.
54) Many scientists oppose fluoridation
In addition to most of the world and a majority of communities in North America, many scientists oppose adding fluoride to water.
In fact, at least 13 Nobel Prize winners have opposed or expressed their concern about fluoridation.176
But most surprisingly, the EPA’s (United States Environmental Protection Agency) Headquarters Professionals’ Union that represents over 1500 scientists has gone on record to oppose water fluoridation due to concerns about fluoride’s health effects.177
55) Current endorsements are a façade
The reality is many pro-fluoride people solely rely on the list of organizations that support fluoridation.
They think and say “since A, B & F endorse fluoridation, it must be good”.
Now this is how it “should” be. We should be able to trust organizations that claim to be a leading source of information in their field. But simply put, many of these organizations have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about.
For example, let’s look at the American Dental Association.
Now we “should” believe the American Dental Association when it comes to things related to our teeth. But did you know they recommend mercury fillings and promote that drinking fluoridated water for babies is safe? (I’ve included a screenshot of their website below)
So if you follow their advice your child’s brain will be damaged and it’s IQ will be lowered.
Your mouth will also be filled with fillings made out of the 3rd most toxic substances on the planet next to arsenic and lead.
But the joke of endorsements don’t stop their… the U.S PHS (United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps) endorsed fluoridation BEFORE a single trial or significant health study had been completed.178 This paved the way to many other endorsements, all of which lacked any scientific foundation.
Thinking about it, we have very little good news about fluoride now, after 70+ years of fluoridation. So what were these organizations basing their decision on? Clearly, with the right amount of money you can make most organizations say whatever you want.
56) Most dentists and doctors are misguided
There are many doctors and dentists that are against fluoride but the problem is most still promote it as a safe and effective way of dealing with cavities. The thing is, many of them don’t take the time to read about it the way you are right now.
But instead, they blindly repeat what they’re told in school.
Not to mention there are many bright and well principled dentists and doctors that are afraid to speak out due to repercussions.
It’s also important to note, just because it comes out of a dentist or doctor’s mouth, does not mean it’s right. It’s important to remember these are the same “professionals” that have promoted:
- smoking (even for pregnant women)
- mercury fillings for teeth
- drugs like thalidomide and Vioxx
- low-fat diets
- vegetable oil consumption
57) Fluoridation is a waste of taxpayer money
For a city like Spokane, Washington (population of 222,081),179 it would cost approximately 4-6 million dollars to install a fluoridation system.180 Which does not include the cost of chemicals and management of the system.
Now if fluoride did what it’s “supposed” to do then sure this would be a great investment.
But as we learned in #1, fluoride does NOT work by swallowing it. So adding fluoride in water with the intention of drinking it, is 100% a waste of money. Imagine where else that money could go towards?
58) Fluoride is NOT natural
Throughout human existence, people were rarely exposed to high levels of fluoride.
For example, surface water (lakes, rivers, springs – sources of water people naturally drank from for tens of thousands of years) is low in fluoride and contains an average of 0.05 ppm.181
Not only that, natural foods like eggs, meat, milk, nuts, and fruits are also very low in fluoride.
The confusion arises when people talk about “naturally occurring” fluoride in tea or water. But unfortunately, this fluoride content is very likely due to fluoride pollution from various industries.
59) Breast milk is very low in fluoride
Fluoride levels in a mother’s milk is essentially non-existent.
As a study by the NRC in 2006 found the average concentration of fluoride levels in human breast milk in non-fluoridated areas to be 0.004 ppm.49
Compare this to fluoridated water (0.6 – 1.2 ppm) and the difference is that bottled fed babies can consume up to 300 times more fluoride than breast-fed babies.
With that said, I’ll leave you with a question.
If millions of years of evolution decided you don’t need fluoride when you’re a baby, why do you need it when you’re older?
Mother Nature knows best and she did not choose fluoride.
60) The CDC recommends against fluoridated water for babies
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has changed their mind and advises against exposing babies to fluoridated water.
Recommending that fluoridated water NOT be used for preparing baby formula (infant exposure to fluoridated water has been found to be a major risk factor for developing dental fluorosis later in life).182-184
Which should be to no surprise since, there are no benefits (see reasons…), only risks (see reason…) for ingesting fluoride but especially for babies, since they’re at an age where they are most vulnerable to environmental toxins.
Infant exposure to fluoride will lower the child’s IQ and may lead to ADHD, autism, and other cognitive impairments.
The problem is that the CDC has done very little to get this information out to parents.
Leaving many parents in the dark of the potential and likely effects fluoride is having on their children.
61) Review panels are hand-picked to deliver pro-fluoridation results
Whenever a fluoridation program is under attack, governments put together a review panel whose main goal is to determine whether or not fluoridation is the right thing to do.
What a responsible thing to do, don’t you think?
The only problem is that they hand-pick people who are pro-fluoride to make up these “review panels”. So of course, they’ll reach the conclusion that fluoridation should be continued.
This can be proven by reviewing the membership of various panels. Which was done and acknowledged (surprisingly) by Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr in their pro-fluoride book entitled “Fluoride Wars”.
62) Fluoride one once used as RAT POISON
Fluoride was once used as rat poison and to this day is still used as a pesticide on many foods.
Now there are many but the most common fluoride pesticide is Sulfuryl Fluoride. Which is used as a food fumigant on post-harvest foods like grains, nuts, coffee, cocoa beans, along with many other fruits and vegetables.185
Now if that’s not an issue already…
Sulfuryl fluoride leaves behind fluoride and sulfuryl fluoride residue in or on the food. A troubling reality due to the fact in 2005, the EPA set the highest levels of fluoride residues on food in its history.185
Fully knowing sulfuryl fluoride severely attacks the brain and adds to total fluoride intake.
63) Mothers and fathers are lied to, or at the very least left in the dark
As mentioned, it’s a well known fact that small children should not be drinking fluoridated water.
Yet how many parents do you think know this? Not many.
Now as proposed by the Fluoride Action Network, this could be solved by water utility companies adding the following statement to all of their customers bills:
“Your public water supply is fluoridated. Fluoridated water should not be used or added to infant formula, foods, or drinks intended for babies 12 months of age or younger in order to avoid dental fluorosis.”
64) Failure to debate the other side
Pro-fluoride people rarely if ever accept debates.
I really don’t blame them…
Imagine a pro-fluoride leader debating someone well-versed like Dr. Paul Connnett? Safe to say, their shaming, appeal to emotion (not facts), and manipulation tactics would not work well in a debate.
People like you and I would see right through it.
65) More research has to be done… not.
You’d think BEFORE putting a highly toxic industrial by-product in the water of millions of people, you’d have key health studies done to know without a doubt it’s safe and actually works.
But as you’ve read here, clearly that’s not the case.
It’s obvious that we’re supposed to just accept the status quo and go with what we’re told.
Now for the longest time, promoters of fluoridation would use the absence of studies as proof there is an absence of harm. Now without explaining how dumb that thinking is, we don’t have to entertain that position any more.
The truth is we have more than enough information proving not only that there is great harm caused by fluoride (reasons #26-40) but also that adding fluoride to water is not effective in reducing tooth decay (reasons #7-14) .
66) High standards for us, low standards for them…
Over time, you’ll notice pro-fluoride individuals hold anti-fluoride individuals to high standards.
Everything we say has to be cited and proved. That’s why you see a little number after most things I say, that way you can see the source of information for yourself.
But whenever they speak of fluoride they expect you to believe them because they’re a dentist, doctor, or because a certain organization supports fluoride.
However, you’ll find very few if any of them source quality information or follow any logic or rational thinking. They just repeat what they were told and expect you to do the same.
67) Focusing on the wrong thing
As mentioned in reason #6, less than 2% of your teeth is made out of fluoride.
In fact, mineralized enamel is made of 89% calcium hydroxyapatite and small amounts of calcium carbonate (4%), calcium fluoride (2%), and magnesium phosphate (1.5%).13
So wouldn’t it make sense to focus on something like calcium and phosphate which makes up more than 95% of your teeth rather than fluoride that makes up less than 2%?
Of course it does.
And considering 44.1% of the U.S population does not meet the daily requirement for calcium, that should be the focus and not fluoride – a substance that’s actually essential to human health.160
Not to mention a whopping 94.3% of the U.S population does not meet the daily requirement for vitamin D – an essential nutrient that helps the body absorb calcium and phosphorus. And thus plays an important role in tooth and bone mineralization.11 So without vitamin D, your teeth will be highly susceptible to tooth decay.186,187
68) Safer and better alternative to fluoride
At this point we know there is zero reason to drink or eat fluoride but what about toothpaste?
Well you’ll be happy to hear studies have shown that hydroxyapatite toothpaste (made out of the main ingredient found in our teeth) is just as effective in re-mineralizing and preventing cavities as fluoride toothpaste.188
And best of all, it’s safe and non-toxic.
69) Is the juice worth the squeeze?
Let’s quickly look at the pros and cons of adding fluoride to water.
To include fluoride in water, you have one reason – to provide minimal to non-existent dental benefits.
But reason #1 showed us fluoride does NOT work by swallowing. While reason #7-14 have shown us that there’s no difference in tooth decay between countries that add fluoride to their water to ones that don’t and tooth decay does NOT go up when you stop drinking fluoridated water.
Mix in the fact, you can replace your fluoride toothpaste with a safe and effective alternative.
There is ZERO pros to having fluoride in your life.
While on the other side you have… at least 69 strong reasons against it.
So is the non-existent to small benefit worth everything you read?
If you’ve read all the way here, it’s safe to assume you now know fluoride is not a miracle cure for cavities, or at the very least, are starting to question fluoride and everything we’ve been told.
To end this, all I ask at this point is to use the blue buttons below and share this with your friends and family.
Also if you have any questions or criticism, feel free to contact me using the information below.
*Original article online at https://truthaboutfluoride.com/reasons-to-oppose-fluoridation/#:~:text=69%20Reasons%20To%20Oppose%20Adding%20Fluoride%20To%20Water,to%20swallow%20fluoride%20in%20order%20to%20protect%20teeth.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 50(RR14): 1-42.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report. 48: 933-940.
- “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations”. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). September 17, 2019.
- Wang C, et al. (2000). Treatment Chemicals contribute to Arsenic Levels. Opflow. (Journal of the American Water Works Association. October 2000.
- Gershon-Cohen J., McClendon J.F. The cariostatic effect of fluorine in tea. J. Albert Einstein Med. Cent. 1957;5:153–154
- Buzalaf M.A., Pessan J.P., Honorio H.M., Cate J.M. Mechanisms of action of fluoride for caries control. Monogr. Oral Sci. 2011;22:97–114
- European Food Safety Authority Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for fluoride, EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies. EFSA J. 2013;11:3332–3378
- De Stefano TM. (1954). The fluoridation research studies and the general practitioner. Bulletin of Hudson County Dental Society.February.
- Sutton P. (1996). The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation. Lorne, Australia: Kurunda Pty, Ltd.
- Sutton P. (1960). Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. Second Edition.
- Sutton, P. (1959). Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. First Edition.
- Burgstahler AW, et al. (1997). Fluoride in California wines and raisins. Fluoride. 30: 142-146.
- NRC (2006). National Research Council of the National Academies, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Han H, Cheng Z, Liu W. 1989. Effects of fluorine on the human fetus. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:136-138 (republished in Fluoride 41:321-6).
- McDonagh M, et al. (2000). A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, September 2000.
- Marier J and Rose D. (1977). Environmental Fluoride. National Research Council of Canada. Associate Committee on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality. NRCC No. 16081, Ottawa, Canada.
- Ekstrand J, et al. (1994). Fluoride pharmacokinetics in infancy. Pediatric Research. 35:157–163.
- Krishnamachari K.A. Skeletal fluorosis in humans: A review of recent progress in the understanding of the disease. Progr. Food Nutr. Sci. 1986;10:279–314 [LINK]
- Luke J. (2001). Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35: 125-128.
- Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildord.
- NRC (2006). National Research Council of the National Academies, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Sharma R et al. (2008). Fluoride Induces Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Inhibits Protein Synthesis and Secretion. Environ Health Perspect. 116:1142–1146.
- Sawan RMM et al. (2010) Fluoride Increases Lead Concentrations in Whole Blood and in Calcified Tissues from Lead-Exposed Rats.Toxicology. 271 1–2: 21–26.
- Stecher P, et al. (1960). The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs. Merck & Co., Inc, Rathway NJ. p. 952
- Galletti P, Joyet G. (1958). Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 18: 1102-1110.
- Department of Health & Human Services. (U.S. DHHS) (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride, Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Department of Health and Human Services, USA.
- Caldwell KL, et al. (2008). Iodine status of the U.S. population, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Thyroid 18(11):1207-14.
- Gas’kov A, et al. (2005). The specific features of the development of iodine deficiencies in children living under environmental pollution with fluorine compounds. Gig Sanit. Nov-Dec;(6):53-5.
- Hong F, et al. (2001). Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environmental conditions. Chinese Primary Health Care 15: 56-57.
- Wang X, et al. (2001). Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children’s intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 20(4):288-90.
- Zhao W, Zhu H, Yu Z, Aoki K, Misumi J, Zhang X. 1998. Long-term effects of various iodine and fluorine doses on the thyroid and fluorosis in mice. Endocrine Regulation 32(2):63-70.
- Xu Y, et al. (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84.
- Lin F, et al (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin 6(2):62-67 (republished in Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7(3):24-25).
- Ren D, et al. (1989). A study of the intellectual ability of 8-14 year-old children in high fluoride, low iodine areas. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:251.
- Guan ZZ, et al. (1988). Synergistic action of iodine-deficiency and fluorine-intoxication on rat thyroid. Chinese Medical Journal 101(9):679-84.
- Pontigo-Loyola A, et al. (2008). Dental fluorosis in 12- and 15-year-olds at high altitudes in above-optimal fluoridated communities in Mexico. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 68(3):163-66
- Singh A, et al. (1963). Endemic fluorosis: epidemiological, clinical and biochemical study of chronic fluoride intoxication in Punjab.Medicine. 42: 229-246.
- Franke J, et al. (1975). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride. 8: 61-83.
- Teotia SPS, et al. (1976). Symposium on the non-skeletal phase of chronic fluorosis: The Joints. Fluoride. 9: 19-24.
- Carnow BW, Conibear SA. (1981). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride. 14: 172-181.
- Czerwinski E, et al. (1988). Bone and joint pathology in fluoride-exposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health. 43:340-343.
- Hileman B. (1988). Fluoridation of water: Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News. August 1: 26-42.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Prevalence of Self-Reported Arthritis or Chronic Joint Symptoms Among Adults — United States, 2001. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report. 51: 948-950.
- Inkovaara J, et al. (1975). Prophylactic fluoride treatment and aged bones. British Medical Journal. 3: 73-4.
- Gerster JC, et al. (1983). Bilateral fractures of femoral neck in patients with moderate renal failure receiving fluoride for spinal osteoporosis. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed). 287(6394):723-5
- Dambacher MA, et al. (1986). Long-term fluoride therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone 7: 199-205.
- O’Duffy JD, et al. (1986). Mechanism of acute lower extremity pain syndrome in fluoride-treated osteoporotic patients.American Journal of Medicine. 80: 561-6.
- Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. (1989). Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 4: 223-5.
- Bayley TA, et al. (1990). Fluoride-induced fractures: relation to osteogenic effect. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.5(Suppl 1):S217-22.
- Gutteridge DH, et al. (2002). A randomized trial of sodium fluoride (60 mg) +/- estrogen in postmenopausal osteoporotic vertebral fractures: increased vertebral fractures and peripheral bone loss with sodium fluoride; concurrent estrogen prevents peripheral loss, but not vertebral fractures. Osteoporosis International. 13(2):158-70.
- Gutteridge DH, et al. (1990). Spontaneous hip fractures in fluoride-treated patients: potential causative factors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 5 Suppl 1:S205-15.
- Orcel P, et al. (1990). Stress fractures of the lower limbs in osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 5(Suppl 1): S191-4.
- Riggs BL, et al. (1990). Effect of Fluoride treatment on the Fracture Rates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 322: 802-809.
- Schnitzler CM, et al. (1990). Bone fragility of the peripheral skeleton during fluoride therapy for osteoporosis. Clinical Orthopaedics.(261): 268-75.
- Chachra et al. (2010) The long-term effects of water fluoridation on the human skeleton. Journal of Dental Research. 89(11): 1219-1223.
- Tsutsui T, Suzuki N, Ohmori M, Maizumi H. (1984). Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts induced by sodium fluoride. Mutation Research. 139:193-8.
- Caspary WJ, et al (1987). Mutagenic activity of fluorides in mouse lymphoma cells. Mutation Research. 187:165-80.
- Kishi K, Ishida T. (1993). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells. Mutation Research. 301:183-8.
- Mihashi, M. and Tsutsui,T.(1996). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral body-derived cells in culture.Mutation Research 368: 7-13.
- Zhang, R., et al. (2009). A stable and sensitive testing system for potential carcinogens based on DNA damage-induced gene expression in human HepG2 cell. Toxicology in Vitro. 23:158-165.
- National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C. The results of this study are summarized in the Department of Health and Human Services report (DHHS,1991).
- Hoover RN, et al. (1991a). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service. Appendix E.
- Hoover RN, et al. (1991b). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service. Appendix F.
- Bassin EB et al. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control. 17 (4): 421–28.
- Sun Z, et al. (2010). Effects of sodium fluoride on hyperactivation and Ca2+ signaling pathway in sperm from mice: an in vivo study. Arch Toxicol. 84(5):353-61.
- Dvoráková-Hortová K, et al. (2008). The influence of fluorides on mouse sperm capacitation. Anim Reprod Sci. 108(1-2):157-70.
- Sharma JD, et al. (2008). Amelioration of fluoride toxicity in rats through vitamins (C, D) and calcium. Toxicology International 15:111-6. Available from: http://www.toxicologyinternational.com/text.asp?2008/15/2/111/63167
- Reddy PS, et al. (2007). Suppression of male reproduction in rats after exposure to sodium fluoride during early stages of development. Naturwissenschaften. 2007 Jul;94(7):607-11.
- Gupta RS, et al. (2007). The toxic effects of sodium fluoride on the reproductive system of male rats. Toxicol Ind Health. 23(9):507-13.
- Pushpalatha T, et al. (2005). Exposure to high fluoride concentration in drinking water will affect spermatogenesis and steroidogenesis in male albino rats. Biometals 18:207-12.
- Zakrzewska H, Udala J. (2006). [In vitro influence of sodium fluoride on adenosine triphosphate (ATP) content in ram semen]. [Article in Polish]. Ann Acad Med Stetin. 52 Suppl 1:109-11.
- Freni SC. (1994). Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 42: 109-121.
- Hao P, et al. (2010). Effect of fluoride on human hypothalamus-hypophysis-testis axis hormones. Journal of Hygiene Research 39(1):53-55.
- Chen P, et al. (1997). Effects of hyperfluoride on reproduction-endocrine system of male adults. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 12(2):57-58.
- Susheela AK and Jethanandani P (1996). Circulating testosterone levels in Skeletal Fluorosis patients. Clinical Toxicology.34 (2): 1-7.
- Barot VV. (1998). Occurrence of endemic fluorosis in human population of North Gujarat, India: human health risk. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 61: 303-10.
- Ortiz-Perez D, et al. (2003). Fluoride-induced disruption of reproductive hormones in men. Environmental Research 93:20-30.
- Ueshiba H, Takeda S, Matoba H, Tanaka Y, Yuasa R, Tsuboi K, et al. Serum androgen levels in hyperthyroid women. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 1997;105:359–62.
- Waldbott GL, et al. (1978). Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.
- Shea JJ, et al. (1967). Allergy to fluoride. Annals of Allergy. 25:388-91.
- Moolenburgh H. (1987). Fluoride: The Freedom Fight. Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh.
- Feltman R, Kosel G. (1961). Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides – Fourteen years of investigation – Final report. Journal of Dental Medicine. 16: 190-99.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1993). Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR/TP-91/17.
- Greenberg LW, et al. (1974). Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus with fluorosis. Pediatrics. 54(3):320-2.
- Klein H. (1975). Dental fluorosis associated with hereditary diabetes insipidus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 40(6):736-41.
- Massler M, Schour I. (1952). Relation of endemic dental fluorosis to malnutrition. Journal of the American Dental Association. 44: 156-165.
- Lin Fa-Fu; et al (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin 6(2):62-67 (republished in Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7(3):24-25).
- Chen YC, et al. (1997). Nutrition survey in dental fluorosis-afflicted areas. Fluoride. 30(2):77-80.
- Seow WK, Thomsett MJ. (1994). Dental fluorosis as a complication of hereditary diabetes insipidus: studies of six affected patients. Pediatr Dent. 16(2):128-32.
- Teotia M, et al. (1998). Endemic chronic fluoride toxicity and dietary calcium deficiency interaction syndromes of metabolic bone disease and deformities in India: year 2000. Indian Journal of Pediatrics. 65: 371-81.
- Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation.Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.
- Johnson WJ, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: Johansen E, Taves DR, Olsen TO, Eds.Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.
- Masters R, et al. (2000). Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology. 21: 1091-1099.
- Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. International Journal of Environmental Studies.56: 435-449.
- Macek M, et al. (2006). Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134.
- Maas RP et al. (2007). Effects of Fluoridation and Disinfection Agent Combinations on Lead Leaching from Leaded-Brass Parts.Neurotoxicology. 28 (5): 1023–31.
- Beltrán-Aguilar ED et al. (2005). Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, endentulism, and enamel fluorosis—United States, 1988- 1994 and 1999-2002. CDC, MMWR, Surveillance Summaries, August 26, vol. 54, No SS-3, pp. 1-44. See Table 23.
- Statement from EPA Headquarters Union on Why they Oppose Fluoridation: Hirzy, J.W. (1999). Why the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation. Press release from National Treasury Employees Union, May 1, 1999.
- chapters 9 and 10 in The Case Against Fluoride
- Environment Canada. (1993). Inorganic Fluorides: Priority Substances List Assessment Report. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
- Marshall TA, et al. (2004). Associations between Intakes of Fluoride from Beverages during Infancy and Dental Fluorosis of Primary Teeth. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23:108-16.Martin B. (1991). Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate. SUNY Press,Albany NY.
- Hong L, et al. (2006). Timing of fluoride intake in relation to development of fluorosis on maxillary central incisors. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:299-309.
- Levy SM, et al. (2010). Associations Between Fluorosis of Permanent Incisors and Fluoride Intake From Infant Formula, Other Dietary Sources and Dentifrice During Early Childhood. JADA 141:1190-1201.
- Foster B.L., Nociti F.H., Somerman M.J. The rachitic tooth. Endocr. Rev. 2014;35:1–34. doi: 10.1210/er.2013-1009.
- D’Ortenzio L., Kahlon B., Peacock T., Salahuddin H., Brickley M. The rachitic tooth: Refining the use of interglobular dentine in diagnosing vitamin D deficiency. Int. J. Paleopathol. 2018;22:101–108. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2018.07.001.
*Original article online at https://truthaboutfluoride.com/reasons-to-oppose-fluoridation/#:~:text=69%20Reasons%20To%20Oppose%20Adding%20Fluoride%20To%20Water,to%20swallow%20fluoride%20in%20order%20to%20protect%20teeth.