"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong,
Of all life's necessities, water is perhaps the most vulnerable to contamination. Oregonians are gifted with a natural bounty of clean drinking water, yet we are intentionally compromising this precious resource.
The Oregon State Legislature is now considering Senate Bill 99. If passed, it would require water systems serving more than 10,000 people to fluoridate their drinking water.
This report presents research that proves why adding fluoride compounds to our water supply is unsupportable from any angle. It dispels the misconception stated in SB 99 that fluoride is "necessary to insure safe and healthy drinking water."
What ever you think you know about fluoridation,
1) Fluoride in Water Does Not Prevent Tooth
"Fluoride, the key agent in battling caries, works primarily via topical mechanisms," according to the July 2000 cover story in the Journal of the American Dental Association ("The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention" by John D. B. Featherstone, M.SC., Ph.D.)
In his earlier report, Dr. Featherstone (a proponent of fluoridation) concluded: "The level of fluoride incorporated into dental mineral by systemic ingestion is insufficient to play a significant role in caries prevention. . . . The systemic benefits of fluoride are minimal." ("Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride," Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:31-40)
Dental authorities who once supported water fluoridation are now saying it is unnecessary.
• The rate of dental caries is similar in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. In 1986-87, the National Institute of Dental Health collected dental data of 39,207 school children, aged 5-17, in 84 areas throughout the United States. Analysis showed no significant differences were found in the decay rates of permanent teeth or the percentages of decay-free children living in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated or partially fluoridated communities.
What's more — as Andreas Schuld, head of Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children, points out — this study did show that cities with high rates of decay "have 9.34 % more decay in the children who drink fluoridated water. Furthermore, a 5.4 % increase in students with decay was observed when 1 ppm (part per million) fluoride was added to the water supply. Nine fluoridated cities with high decay had 10 percent more decay than nine equivalent non-fluoridated cities."
," Fluoride 23:55-67 (1990).
• See the Fluoride Action Network report:
more about how fluoride works,
Fluoridation Does Not Save Money.
In their 1999 report, the CDC no longer makes this speculative conclusion. Instead, it says, "One economic analysis estimated that prevention of dental caries, largely attributed to fluoridation and fluoride-containing products, saved $39 billion (1990 dollars) in dental-care expenditures in the United States during 1979-1989."
• In reality, there are no significant savings in dental costs in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas. An analysis of 1994-95 California State Department of Health dental statistics in 55 counties compared the average annual Medi-Cal costs for dental work per eligible recipient. It turned out that the costs were only a few dollars apart, and the non-fluoridated areas were often lower. (Yiamouyiannis JA, "Dental Costs Not Affected by Fluoridation — Large-Scale Tooth Decay Studies Show Lack of 'Beneficial' Effects," Fluoride: Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, Aug. 1998, pp 129-174)
• "Comparing the State of California 1994 non-weighted dental costs for the 14 largest counties reveals that counties 90% fluoridated spent on average $121.93 per eligible recipient for treatment of tooth decay, and counties with less than 10% fluoridation spent only $118.33 per eligible recipient." (David C. Kennedy, DDS, the past president of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology)
• In fact, research suggests that teeth damaged by excess fluoride become more susceptible to tooth decay. Andreas Schuld cites several studies showing that fluoridated water caused more cavities! One was the world's largest study on dental caries. It looked at 400,000 students and found that decay increased 27% with a 1 ppm fluoride increase in drinking water. ("Fluoride — Worse Than We Thought," Wise Traditions, Vol. 1:3 Fall, 2000)
• The real operating costs that taxpayers will pay for fluoridation are not clear, but California provides a good example. In 1995, their original estimate was about $40 million to fluoridate 167 communities in the state (with annual operating costs of $15 million). In 1999, that initial amount jumped to $200 million. (San Jose Mercury News, March 18, 1999)
• Even if ingested fluoride were effective in reducing tooth decay, adding it to the water supply is a grossly inefficient way to deliver any medication. Think about it: most of a household's water goes to the lawn and garden, to cloths and dishes, showers and baths. Only a minuscule amount of the fluoride added to a community's water supply is actually consumed by people. Fluoridation is a foolish waste of taxpayer money.
• Read the Fluoride Action Network's "Deconstructing Michael Easley.
• Get a revealing look at the Oregon Health Division's motivation to fluoridate vs. their knowledge of the process.
Read more about the push to fluoridate at any cost — including "statistical fraud" — or read on. . .
3) Congress is Now Investigating the Chemicals Used to
The most common substances now used in 90% of fluoridation systems are hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are waste products captured in scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. When injured workers at a phosphate plant asked investigative writer George Glasser for help, he learned where the chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water originate:
This hazardous waste has never been tested, either alone in distilled water, or in combination with other chemicals and contaminants found in tap water. Jeff Green, Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, explains:
If taxpayers weren't paying for this toxic waste, it would cost the fertilizer industry hundreds of millions of dollars to properly dispose of it. Hence, the reason why money is what perpetuates the myth of fluoridation. But it also takes ignorance to accept it. Thankfully, people are speaking out.
Join the nationwide call for congressional hearings on fluoridation.
Read more about the untested chemicals used to fluoridate your drinking water, or read on. . .
Scientists Want a National Moratorium on Water
On June 29, 2000, the union's Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., testified at the Congressional investigation on behalf of the toxicologists, biologists, chemists, and physicians who work at EPA headquarters. He rendered a clear record of EPA activities that depart from the agency's own professional standards to arrive at a Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for fluoride that is at least 8-times less protective than current science supports.
• The vast difference in the protection provided the public for fluoride exposure is demonstrated by comparing the Maximum Contaminant Levels for lead, fluoride, and arsenic. While fluoride is slightly less toxic than arsenic — and more toxic than lead — the MCL for lead is 15 ppb (parts per billion) and for arsenic it's (now) 10 ppb. Yet, fluoride's MCL has been established by at 4,000 ppb!
Fluoride is quite biologically active even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding which is central to the structure and function of proteins and nucleic acids. Thus, fluoride has the potential to disrupt events at the very heart of living things.
• In their May 2000 report, "In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development," the Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility concluded: "Studies in animals and human populations suggest that fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain."
more about the neurotoxic effects of fluoride,
here to find your legislators' contact information.
Home Page of