Water fluoridation: Facts & fallacies

Water fluoridation has been around for just over 60 years and whilst the practice has become widespread, particularly in Western nations, it’s always been a controversial and often passionately argued one.

Huw Griffiths
New Dawn Magazine
Tue, 01 Jan 2019 15:50 UTC


My formative moment in the fluoride ‘debate’, one that cathartically shunted me into the anti-fluoride lobby’s arms, came many years ago when I was sitting in a dentist’s chair in Cambridge, UK.

I knew very little about fluoride at the time, so it was with an open mind and calm disposition that I opened my mouth in order for my dentist to pour in some fluoride solution which he said would give my teeth a strong protective coating. The problems started immediately after having dispensed the liquid into my mouth when he stammered, “…but don’t whatever you do swallow it!” “Why?” I gurgled, “Because it’s poisonous and could kill you,” came his reply.

The swill, which was supposed to have lasted about one minute actually lasted about 10 seconds and ended up all over my lap and the surgery floor. The incident was funny. We laughed about it at the time, but I had learned something new and very disturbing about fluoride that has remained with me. It matured into an understanding and appreciation of matters concerning fluoride that, whether you have any concerns about ingesting this chemical or not, I feel compelled to share with you.

The pro-fluoridation lobby, notably the dental and medical associations in several countries, together with armies of practitioners tethered to them, will tell you that fluoride is a naturally occurring substance,1 that it is safe and effective at preventing tooth decay when used in designated dosages, and that its use is strongly supported by credible scientific evidence. It has, they say, improved the quality of life and well being of millions of people around the world for decades.

They will also say that because it is generally added to water supplies at less than 1 part per million, that it is extremely safe, but that ‘if’ young children get too much fluoride they may develop a condition called dental fluorosis which is mostly detectable by dentists and involves a mild discolouration of teeth enamel. All sounds pretty harmless and reassuring don’t you think?

However, if you were to take a quick peek at even a small amount of the arguments that are levied against the use of fluoride by the anti-fluoride lobbyists, you might be in for a nasty, albeit rather compelling, surprise.

Let me just pick off a few of them and in no particular order.

On the history of fluoridation, despite what is written on the Australian Dental Association’s website2 – which states that interest began in the US more than 100 years ago when a Colorado dentist noticed that some of his patients were displaying mottled yet decay free teeth which he deducted was due to their drinking of local spring water that was naturally high in fluoride – the real and well documented origins of water fluoridation actually sprang from a pre-emptive public relations campaign commissioned by US military interests.3 They were attempting to stave off litigation arising out of the Manhattan Project, the one that was set up to produce the world’s first atomic bomb.

Apparently atomic bomb production required enormous amounts of fluoride, which inevitably resulted in large amounts of fluoridated (not radioactive) effluent spewing out over the US countryside. People, animals and crops that were downwind began to get diseased causing the US government to become concerned (for its precious bomb project, not the people who were sick).

For the US, with plans to use the A-Bomb as a defensive deterrent after WWII, it was a strategic imperative that bomb production be allowed to continue without the threat of massive class actions hanging over it, and that therefore the exposure of humans to ‘low’ levels of atmospheric fluoride be demonstrated to be biologically safe.

Human studies developed and administered by institutions associated with the A-Bomb project were mainly focused on the town of Newburgh,4 New York from 1946-56 where the effects on health were observed following the addition of fluoride to the town’s drinking water supplies.

Whilst the results of the research were heavily censored, the intended purpose of the findings had been to serve as evidence in favour of the safety of continued low, long term exposure of humans to fluoride.5

The litigants, mainly farmers, were bought off and the results of the research will therefore probably never be dragged into the public spotlight. However, following incidental observations made during the water fluoridation research program, it was floated by one of the team leaders that it “might help to counteract a local fear of fluoride… through lectures on… fluoride toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of fluoride in tooth health.”6

The rest is history! That the development of water fluoridation was motivated by a benevolent move to prevent dental caries was almost a total myth and it gets a lot worse than that.

Fluoride production increased significantly since the immediate post-war years and is now a toxic by-product of the chemical industry that is produced in massive quantities. Most of the early research presented to support the notion that fluoride is both safe and effective for use in the prevention of tooth decay was conducted or funded by the very same interests7 that stood to benefit most from its use in the public domain. It was also done when there was a lot less environmental fluoride around too.

That fluoride is toxic and dangerously so is not in doubt or contention, but the fact that it is poured into the water supply of any local council that so wishes to do so is nothing short of criminal, given the facts that are now available.

Most European countries including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Holland and the whole of Scandinavia, have (in many cases after having embraced it) now rejected water fluoridation outright.8 As of today Europe is reportedly 90%+ free9 of fluoridated water. Indeed there have never been any transparently conducted scientific studies anywhere in the world,10including Australia, that unequivocally demonstrated the safety of water fluoridation on human health, most of the research having been focused on the chemical’s dubious impact on oral health.

Fluoride is a cumulative toxin, it gets stored mostly in bone tissue and has now found its way into dental products, food, soft drinks, polluted air and in fact it’s just about in anything manufactured using treated mains water.

Although it varies from place to place, it is added to water in concentrations of around 1 part per million, a level deemed safe,11 yet is added to toothpaste products in concentrations as high as 1,500 p.p.m., easily enough to kill a small child if it swallowed a whole tube.

Fluoride does indeed occur in nature in trace amounts, but the fluoride that we have in our water supplies is not the same thing at all. What we put into our mains water is, without exception, an industrial toxic waste product. Neither is fluoride in any of its forms essential for good nutrition.12 Tooth decay (contrary to what is implied by the likes of the Australian Dental Association and the Australian Medical Association) is not a symptom of fluoride deficiency. There is no such thing.

The forms of fluoride placed into our water systems and then into our bodies are usually calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride or hydrofluorosilicic acid. They are all either industrial or pharmaceutical grades of fluoride compounds which, in the instance of the latter, is scraped from the inside of smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizers. If it were not dumped into our drinking water it would be considered a highly dangerous and toxic chemical to be disposed of at considerable expense and with significant health and safety precautions. Yet we happily consume it when we’re told to.

Another way of looking at water fluoridation is as a form of forced mass medication not by doctors, but, effectively by dentists. We should remember that these are the same body of professionals who are still lodging tons of mercury in our mouths each year in the form of amalgam fillings. If I lived in an area where 25% of people suffered from headaches I’d be unhappy, to put it mildly, if my local council put paracetamol in my water supply as a preventive measure and on the advice of some doctor. I fail to see the difference with what they are doing with fluoride (except that fluoride is a toxic waste and not an approved medicine).

If you absolutely do not want to take fluoride when it’s forced on you the only way to resist is to purchase a water filter that is good enough to filter the stuff out. Even if you did this, what about the water you bath and shower in, or those who live in places too small to accommodate an extra tank, or in institutions where you just don’t get the choice. It’s sometimes simply impossible to take evasive action.

With mass medication there is no such thing as a safe nominated dose. Even if we did need extra fluoride, just like everything else in this world everyone’s needs are totally individual, as are indeed our levels of exposure to fluoride natural and otherwise. We’d do well to remember that early research into fluoride was done before it was widely dispersed into the atmosphere, our food, drinks and personal care products.

Further, there are those amongst us who tend to drink more than others, sportspeople, the sick or the very young. What level of choice do they get if they don’t want to overdose on fluoride? Water fluoridation will give you the same dose per litre whether you drink a lot of water or not.

I don’t trust any authority when, as the Australian Dental Association (ADA) does, it continues to claim that the side effects of fluoridation are limited to fluorosis13 and little else. Fluorosis is, in itself, evidence of excessive ingestion of fluoride and shouldn’t be tolerated at all – period. In order for the ADA to say this with any integrity and honesty it has to be ignoring, at the public’s expense, a large body of accumulating evidence that strongly indicates fluoride is neither as effective, nor as safe as it was once cracked up to be.

New research indicates that the benefits of fluoride are equivalent to an average difference of less than one filling in baby teeth of younger children and “no significant difference” in the permanent teeth of older children,14 yet the pro-lobbyists are still claiming the outdated figure of between a 15-25% reduction in tooth caries in fluoridated areas! They’re having us on!

Perhaps more to the point, the reduction in dental caries that we have seen (credit for which has been claimed by the pro-lobby) were in line with similar reductions in areas that were not fluoridated. In fact in fluoridated areas that were monitored after they had ceased fluoridation caries reduction was seen to peak immediately after cessation.15

Other research tells us that for fluoride to be effective as a preventive measure against tooth decay it has to be used topically.16 This means that forced ingestion via the water supply is ineffective. The same research also indicates that fluoride works least well down among the crevasses and fissures of the teeth, where most decay occurs anyway.

Coming closer to home and Australian research has recently debunked the myth that Australians living in fluoridated areas have healthier teeth and significantly lower levels of tooth decay than the rest of the nation. They don’t.

Recent claims17 by the Queensland government that Townsville (fluoridated for 50 years or more) has 65% less decay is based on data from 1991 (!) and relates to a tiny 0.2% of a single tooth surface (there are 128 tooth surfaces in the average fully grown adult mouth). Therefore the claims and many others that it is using to support fluoridation, and the same goes for every other state, are misleading and unjustified.

More recent surveys done between 2000-2002 clearly show that Townsville children have more decay in their permanent teeth than children in North Brisbane, the Gold Coast and several other Queensland Health Districts that do not have water fluoridation. Townsville, for all its decades of fluoridation, is smack in the middle, no better and no worse than any other area of Queensland. Do these sorts of results justify the continued dumping of a toxic waste into our drinking water?

As the award-winning investigative reporter Christopher Bryson says in his book The Fluoride Conspiracy, “Fluoride science is corporate science, fluoride science is DDT science, it’s asbestos science, its tobacco science.”

It’s happened in Europe, but when are our politicians going to stop this fluoride nonsense here in Australia?

2006 was a good year for anti-fluoride lobbies. The National Research Council in the US, a highly reputable scientific organisation, issued a report called ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards’.18 It is a lengthy report that was not commissioned to judge the safety or benefits of water fluoridation per se, but rather to assess the safety of the “maximum contaminant level goal,” which incidentally the report recommended should be lowered.

But the report, despite keeping rigidly to the initial brief, gave strong support to the notion that US citizens are being constantly over-dosed with harmful levels of fluoride and that whilst bones and teeth were most affected, these were not the sole targets of the report’s concern.

The report threw up a growing body of research linking fluoride exposure to crippling skeletal fluorosis (similar in effect to arthritis), bone fracture, joint pain and damaged teeth. It also pointed to fluoride’s disruption of the nervous and endocrine (hormone) systems with specific focus on the brain, the thyroid and the pineal glands. There is also evidence linking fluoride to behavioural disorders, clinical depression, dementia, lowered levels of I.Q. and migraines, and finally to osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer that particularly affects young males).

So, bad news is good news, but does it make you feel like taking a glass of tap water with added fluoride, or what? Small wonder then that there is this world wide phenomenon whereby whenever there is a publicized public debate on the merits or otherwise of the fluoridation of water, no one from the pro-lobby ever shows up.

By way of reinforcing the reasons why this is so, it’s worth remembering that back in 1965 when fluoridation was well underway in the US, it was Joseph Flanagan of the American Medical Association which openly endorsed the use of fluoride for dental caries prevention. He wrote:

“The AMA is not prepared to state that ‘no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation’. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side-effects.”19

Which brings me to the extraordinary turn of events that appears to be taking place in Queensland at the time of writing.

Given all the evidence currently available which throws such extreme doubt and serious concerns on the practice of water fluoridation, the State government in Queensland has chosen 2008 to go open slather on water fluoridation.20

Up until now Queenslanders had been given a choice on whether or not to fluoridate its local water supplies. Only 5% of Queensland has elected to do so, although some previously had done so and subsequently discontinued the practice. Yet according to the latest National Children’s Dental Survey (published in Dec. 2007),21 75.1% of Queensland children aged 5-12 years have no decayed teeth. This compares with figures of 76.9% for the national average and 72.9% and 79.7% in the ACT and South Australia respectively (both fluoridated and the ACT 100%). So why the sudden and urgent need to fluoridate Queensland’s water supply?

This provides clear and irrefutable proof that fluoridation neither creates good dental health, nor performs any better at doing so than areas that do not have water fluoridation.

No one is saying there is no problem with standards of dental health and that something really ought to be done about it. The key issue is that overwhelmingly water fluoridation is not the answer, and when it is mistakenly introduced as the answer it presents a plethora of serious new risks to the health of the people who drink it. The ADA doesn’t believe these risks exist and if you don’t believe me go and have a look at the FAQ section of its website.22

Take any region of Australia whether it is fluoridated or not and compare the figures. The statistics,23 when carefully and thoroughly studied, strongly suggest that fluoridation makes only insignificant improvements to dental health in the early years (in all likelihood only because one of the effects of fluoride is to delay the eruption of first teeth) and none at all once kids reach 12 years or so. After drinking fluoridated water for 12 years, Townsville children have the same or more decay as children who never consumed fluoridated water!

It isn’t all about the likes of Townsville either. Some of the other problems that water fluoridation hasn’t solved are: a) nursing bottle tooth decay, a problem affecting all areas in Australia, b) lower income groups which tend to have higher levels of tooth decay, yet still drink the same water as higher income groups, c) rural and remote areas where tooth decay is reportedly consistently worse, and finally d) Aboriginal and Islander communities where oral health has declined to levels well below the national average and have been headed in that direction ever since they stopped eating traditional, healthy diets.

So where is all this going? Well, if Queensland is anything to go by, back to the dark ages. Will someone please tell the Queensland government this is not a good time to take the highly questionable step of forcing water fluoridation onto the rest of the State. It flies directly in the face of common sense, current wisdom, people’s rights and is not in the best interests of everyone’s long term health.

As a spokesperson for Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation recently articulated in an open letter to State Premier Anna Bligh,24 “If fluoride ingested water made a real difference to decay, the longer it was consumed, the more difference there would be.”

So here, for what it is worth, are a few humble suggestions for the way forward from here. My first and number one priority would be to stop water fluoridation now. The evidence is very much against it and has already convinced most of Western Europe.

My second would be that if you don’t accept the first point, then before anyone with sufficient power and totally lacking an enquiring mind makes a decision that could make us all ill, would someone please fund some good, objective and independent research so that the matter can once and for all be decided.

Thirdly, whilst I’m not sure where everybody else stands on this issue, if you are quietly and rock solidly convinced that you as an individual need fluoride, especially if you have any affiliation with the ADA, then be my guest and go buy yourself a tube of fluoride toothpaste, but remember to spit it out when you’ve done brushing your teeth as it’s not too good for you if you swallow it.

Finally, and just in case the whole nasty issue of poor dental health could even remotely have anything to do with poor diet, nutrition and generally poor standards of personal oral hygiene, perhaps we might be better off investing some money on trying to improve these things.

The ADA can rubbish the anti-fluoridation lobby as unscientific all it likes, but for me I think that the US National Research Council in its 2006 report; the Lancet,25 one of the medical world’s most pre-eminent journals, which published an article on fluoride as an emerging neurotoxin; Chinese studies linking fluoride to lowered I.Q.26; Cancer, Causes & Control journal which linked osteosarcoma to water fluoridation27; the American Dental Association & Centre for Disease Control 2006 advising that infants under 12 months old not consume fluoridated water28; should all be given bravery awards for finally providing us with good evidence that links adverse health impacts to the practice of water fluoridation.

Don’t expect the chemical industry to stop producing fluoride any time soon either. It’s a big industry and would probably come to a grinding halt if they found they couldn’t produce it any more. But please, can we make them take it away and store it somewhere safe at their own expense and not at ours?

Ah well, these are just some thoughts and only mine at that!


  1. www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/default.asp
  2. Ibid.
  3. Australian Fluoridation News, ‘The Authentic Original History of Fluoridation’ by Glen S.R. Walker, Sept/Oct 2007, p.2.
  4. Ibid., p.6.
  5. Ibid., p.7.
  6. ‘Declassified documents, studies showing lower IQ bolster voter rejection of fluoridation’,Business Wire, 29 November 1996, www.mind-trek.com/arti-int/961202d.txt
  7. Australian Fluoridation News, ‘The Authentic Original History of Fluoridation’ by Glen S.R. Walker, Sept/Oct 2007, p.7.
  8. www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html
  9. Ibid.
  10. ‘Scientists and Professionals Lash Out Against Water Fluoridation’ by Adam Miller, www.naturalnews.com/022008.html
  11. www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/q_and_a.asp
  12. ’50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation’ by Paul Connett, Ph.D Prof. of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, NY, USA, www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm
  13. www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/q_and_a.asp
  14. ‘Caries Experience Among Children in Fluoridated Townsville and Unfluoridated Brisbane’, by Gary D. Slale; John Spencer; Michael J Davies; Judy F. Stewart, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 1996 Dec; 20(6): 623-9.
  15. Olsson ’79; Retief ’79; Mann ’87 & ’90; Steelink ’92; Diesendorf ’86 and Colquhoun ’97, www.fluorideawareballarat.com/what_the_experts_say.htm
  16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC ’99, 2001); bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/904/a
  17. Water Fluoridation & Children’s Dental Health. The Child Dental Health Survey. Aust. 2002.
  18. National Research Council ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards’, 2006, www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/
  19. Letter dated 13.5.1965, J.E. Flanagan Jnr. (Assist.Dir. Dept. of Environmental Health, USA).
  20. www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/whats_new.asp
  21. National Children’s Dental Survey, Australia, published 17 December 2007.
  22. www.fluoridationqld.com
  23. National Children’s Dental Survey, Australia, published 17 December 2007 & Public Water Fluoridation & Dental Health in NSW (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2005. Vol. 9 No.5).
  24. www.gawf.org
  25. ‘Developmental Neurotoxicity in Industrial Chemicals’, Lancet 368.
  26. Wang ’97; Guan ’98; Varner ’98; Zhang’99; Lu 2000; Shao 2000; Sun 2000; Bhatnagar 2002; Chen 2002
  27. Bassin B; Wypi D; David RB; ‘Age Specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (US), 2006.
  28. www.ada.org

About the author

Huw Griffiths is a British-born naturopath who came to Australia in the early ’90’s with his wife and two sons. His interest and passion for natural and traditional health therapies was developed and nurtured alongside an international career in marketing and communications.


Interociter Exeter

I recommend readers consult this excellent site addressing the misleading claims of the American Fluoridation Society:



Martin Harris

I have a lovely partner and 3 very active youngsters. We live in the earthquake ravaged Eastern Suburbs of Christchurch, New Zealand. I began commenting/posting on Uncensored back in early 2012 looking for discussion and answers on the cause and agendas relating to our quakes. I have always maintained an interest in ancient mysteries, UFOs, hidden agendas, geoengineering and secret societies and keep a close eye on current world events. Since 2013 I have been an active member of theCONTrail.com community, being granted admin status and publishing many blogs and discussion threads. At this time I'm now helping out with admin and moderation duties here at Uncensored where my online "life" began.

32 thoughts on “Water fluoridation: Facts & fallacies

  1. Ok, let’s looks at the claims by your naturopath.

    1. “The profluoride lobby”

    This “lobby” consists of those such as the past 6 US Surgeons General, the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry and Public Health, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the New Zealand Dental Association, the Australian Dental Association, the US CDC, the US National Academy of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world. The number of credible organizations which oppose fluoridation is zero.

    2. The “atom bomb” tale is nothing more than antifluoridationist conspiracy/corruption nonsense from some little book by an “investigative reporter”.

    An accurate history of fluoridation by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research may be viewed:


    3. “That fluoride is toxic and dangerously so is not in doubt or contention, but the fact that it is poured into the water supply of any local council that so wishes to do so is nothing short of criminal, given the facts that are now available.”

    That there is no substance known to man, including plain water, that is not “toxic and dangerously so is not in doubt or contention” either. If the naturopath eliminates everything from his diet that is toxic at improper levels, he will have nothing left and will be dead within a week. There is no more valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any toxicity of fluoride at the level at which water is fluoridated than there is that plain water is toxic at proper ingestion levels.

    There is nothing “criminal” about the decision by local officials to properly adjust the concentration levels of existing minerals in drinking water supplies under their jurisdiction.

    4. “Most European countries including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Holland and the whole of Scandinavia, have (in many cases after having embraced it) now rejected water fluoridation outright.”

    The reasons why different countries may not fluoridate their water systems are myriad and diverse. These include such things as logistics of local systems rendering fluoridation cost-prohibitive, use of fluoridated salt and/or milk programs in lieu of fluoridated water, existing water fluoride levels already at, or above the optimal concentration, and equal access to comprehensive dental care by all members of a population.

    From the American Dental Association:

    “The value of water fluoridation is recognized internationally. Countries and geographic regions with extensive water fluoridation include the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, People’s Republic of China (Hong Kong only), Singapore and the United Kingdom. Thorough investigations of fluoridation have been conducted in Britain and Australia supporting the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. Considering the extent to which fluoridation has already been implemented throughout the world, the lack of documentation of adverse health effects is remarkable testimony to its safety. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization have endorsed the practice of water fluoridation since 1964. In 1994, an expert committee of WHO published a report which reaffirmed its support of fluoridation as being safe and effective in the prevention of dental decay, and stated that “provided a community has a piped water supply, water fluoridation is the most effective method of reaching the whole population, so that all social classes benefit without the need for active participation on the part of individuals.” In many parts of the world, fluoridation is not feasible or a high priority, usually due to the lack of a central water supply, the existence of more life threatening health needs or the lack of trained technical personnel or sufficient funds for start-up and maintenance costs.”

    —ADA Fluoridation Fact Sheet
    American Dental Association

    5. “Indeed there have never been any transparently conducted scientific studies anywhere in the world, including Australia, that unequivocally demonstrated the safety of water fluoridation on human health, most of the research having been focused on the chemical’s dubious impact on oral health.”

    There have never any transparently conducted scientific studies anywhere in the world that unequivocally demonstrated the safety of any substance whatsoever on human health. For such guarantees, one will need to go to another planet. None exist here.

    In the 73 year history of water fluoridation, hundreds of millions having chronically ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, there have been no proven adverse effects. There can be no more convincing evidence of safety of an initiative than that.

    In order to credibly demand proof that there is not a problem, one must first provide credible evidence that there is. Given the history of safety of fluoridation, until antifluoridationists can provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water is unsafe, it is the responsibility of no one to prove that it is.

    There is nothing “dubious” about the beneficial impact of water fluoridation on human health…..as evidenced by the countless peer-reviewed scientific studies, current through the present, clearly demonstrating its effectiveness. Several such studies may be viewed:


    6. “Fluoride is a cumulative toxin, it gets stored mostly in bone tissue and has now found its way into dental products, food, soft drinks, polluted air and in fact it’s just about in anything manufactured using treated mains water.”

    Upon ingestion, approximately 50% of fluoride is excreted in short order via the kidneys, with the other 50% being stored in the hard tissues (teeth and bones) of the body. This long term storage is not, however, a linear constant over time. Fluoride in the hard tissues is in equilibrium with fluoride in blood plasma. As blood fluoride levels decrease, fluoride is removed from the hard tissues back into the blood where it is excreted via the kidneys. This process continues until equilibrium is once again met. Blood fluoride levels are determined by fluoride intake and that released from the hard tissues.

    —-Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
    NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water 2006
    pp 89-101

    There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect from long-term storage of fluoride at the level in optimally fluoridated water.

    to be continued……

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    1. Yes, Martin, antifluoridationists frequently make lame attempts to discredit me with nonsense they concoct and post on their own little websites…….because they cannot counter the facts and evidence I provide. That you attempt to do the same by posting links to it here says far more about you and your lack of confidence in your position, than about me. People who attempt to make their “case” with such irrelevant nonsense are certainly welcome to do so. It’s always good for a laugh, if nothing else. However, intelligent people will be far more interested in the facts and evidence I present.

      Into which category do you fit?

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      1. Steven, you seem to have devoted many years of your life to crusading on the fluoridation issue. For me, fluoridation is merely a small part of a much larger picture (revolving around the question of rights and freedoms). So I will use links to those who spend more time and effort than I on the matter without any sense of shame whatsoever. I do not fit into a category Steven. I am not a lab specimen.

        I’m giving you a platform to speak here am I not?
        (Be aware however of the old saying about biting the hand that feeds you;) )

        1. Martin, I have “devoted many years of [my] life” to providing oral healthcare, predominantly to the underserved population. Advocating for dental disease preventive measures is a part of that, and a professional responsibility of any ethical healthcare provider. Fluoridation is but one such measure, albeit a highly effective one.


          Unfortunately there are those, such as Paul Connett and others, who are not healthcare professionals or providers, yet have adopted the decades-old ideology against this initiative dating back to the ultraconservatives at the end of WWII who were paranoid about governmental mind control of the populace. While I have a full time job, and numerous personal and professional responsibilities which occupy my time in addition to providing information on fluoridation, activists such as Connett and his followers, have inexplicably made it their full time job to do nothing but crusade against fluoridation, thereby crusading against the health of the public which I have spent decades trying to improve. They do so by disseminating false claims, misrepresented science, half-truths, and misinformation.

          Your “larger picture” is nothing but a self-centered view of the real world, while wearing restrictive blinders. By trivializing the importance of disease prevention in general, and that of very dangerous oral infection in particular, trumping up some non-existent impingment on your personal “rights and freedoms” in the process, you are attacking the health of the public for the sake of your own, self-serving beliefs, your deluding yourself otherwise notwithstanding.

          As I said , if you want to attempt to discredit me by providing links to hogwash concocted by antifluoridationists and posted on their own little websites, in lieu of addressing the facts and evidence I present, fine with me. That hurts your credibility, not mine.

          As far as some “platform” you believe you have provided, I have ample “platforms” around the world on which to present information on fluoridation, access to care for the underserved, or pretty much whatever else I deem important. I simply respond to antifluoridationist nonsense online when it happens to show up in my “googlealert”, regardless how limited the forum may happen to be. What I am providing to your “platform” is a service for your readers, and an improvement in the credibility of your site…..which, judging by the antifluoridationist nonsense of the naturopath you published, is something of which you are in dire need. In other words, you are confused as to whom is feeding who here.

          Should you choose to censor out my information at some point, that’s entirely expected, and will be a detriment to you, not me……..which you would understand if you did indeed have a view of the “larger picture”. At that point, I will simply move on to another forum, when I have time in between my other activities and responsibilities to do so.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          1. I won’t be censoring out your information Steven, stay as long as you please as long as you abide by the rules, which are in place to ensure civil behavior.
            Perhaps at some point some of our reticent readership will provide comment to either agree or disagree, or debate with you.

            As you have noted, most Alt/Independent sites would not only have cut you off by now, but probably wouldn’t have even given you a chance to speak in the first place. I should think a little credit would be due rather than grumblings about what little space I’ve given you and pre-emptive opinions on I may or may not do with your future comments (which amount to irrelevant speculation on your part).

            Regarding who is feeding who: Pull up a seat my friend and pay close attention:

            When you come to this site, and comment here on whatever of our large range of controversial topics takes your fancy, it’s my job (as defined the publisher/manager who employs me) to moderate. That means I decide what gets approved and what doesn’t. From time to time management may give me directives or constructive guidance. That’s how it works. So when you come here, you are a guest and a visitor and WE are the hand that feeds by allowing you a platform to speak. Now, you may continue to comment and post here and be thankful I’m approving your comments, or you can move along to one of the many other platforms available to you. But make no mistake about who is running the show here and who is the “hand that feeds”. Do I make myself clear, Steven?

            1. Martin

              You still seem to be under the impression that you are doing me sort of favor here. You aren’t. I couldn’t care less if you censor me out. As I said, that’s expected with activist sites which lack confidence in their position. That you expect some sort of thanks because you haven’t yet employed censorship of my information speaks volumes.

              Newsflash….reputable media does not censor opposing views. Contrary to your apparent perspective, this is expected, and not considered to be a favor to those providing such views.

              So, run your “show” however you please. I’ll continue to provide the information you requested, enhancing the credibility of your site in the process. If you choose to censor that information, it’s that credibility which suffers, not mine.

              Do I make myself clear?

              Steven D. Slott, DDS

              1. As I suspected would happen Steven, this has quickly turned into a word-twisting exercise on your part. I was warned about this.

                Despite your repeated babble about censorship, I have not censored any of your comments, so please refrain from suggesting that I intend to in the future. We have established that this isn’t the case. I didn’t request any information from you other than the reason we use sodium fluoride rather than calcium fluoride and a few other specific questions. What I have done, Steven, is allow you to continue commenting.

                “Reputable media”? you’d be surprised how many “reputable” media sources censor opposing views Steven. I speak from experience.

                The articles we publish here are what WE choose to publish based on our readership’s preferences. Our credibility isn’t within your control Steven, and nor is what we choose to publish or not publish, so don’t concern yourself things that are beyond your control. I repeat: Beyond your control. Now, Steven, DO I make myself clear?

                If our site is of such little importance to you, then please move along. If you insist on sticking around then your continued presence suggests that this site is of considerable importance to you despite your denial, and in that case by all means stick around: you might learn something.

              2. Yes, Martin, I’m sure your antifluoridationist friends have warned you about my ability to see through and expose the fallacies of invalid arguments. That you deem this to be “word-twisting” is not surprising in the least. Equally unsurprising is your consideration of censorship discussion to be “babble”. Again, feel free to censor my comments at any time as your frustration continues to build.

                As for what you have requested from me, perhaps you should go back and reread your comments.

                “If you believe the author’s research to be “comedic” etc, then perhaps you could provide some links, counter-evidence or whatever to back up your opinions?”

                Along with answering your specific questions, this is precisely what I have been providing. Correcting the misperceptions you keep posting has taken time away from this, but I’ll get back to it as I have time.

                While I’m unfamiliar with your site or its history, based on the fact-challenged article of the naturopath you published, as well as your response to the information I’ve provided, I can guess the type of articles YOU choose to publish.
                Although your credibility takes a hit with every such article you publish, it is within my control to help you rehabilitate that a bit by providing you with accurate information then goading you into not censoring it out. Thus far, I’ve been successful at that. But who knows how long this will last. One can lead a horse to water……..

                It is a mystery as to why you deem your site to be of such importance to me, or anyone else, but if that’s what gets you out of the bed each morning, fine with me. As long as I have time, I’ll continue to provide you with the information you requested, and am glad to assist you with your endeavor here.

                Steven D. Slott, DDS

  2. Now, let’s see if you have the integrity to post my comment, or whether, as with most antifluoridationists, your lack of confidence in your claims leads you to instead employ censorship.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    1. Thanks Steven,
      We are not called “Uncensored” for nothing: All views are welcome. We only censor trolling and abuse,not opinions! The source of the article and author are given in this post, and don’t necessarily reflect my own opinions or beliefs; If you believe the author’s research to be “comedic” etc, then perhaps you could provide some links, counter-evidence or whatever to back up your opinions?

      My own view on fluoridation is that adding fluoride to the water supply doesn’t help with washing the car, watering the lawn, or make my dishes or clothes any cleaner, and I get more than enough fluoride from toothpaste…so why do I need it in the water supply? Someone must be making $$$ out of fluoridation or no one would bother? Isn’t it also a from of enforced medication?

      1. I’ll even give you a head start Steven:
        Interesting. They state Calcium Flouride occurs naturally, which is true and all fine. Yet its Sodium Flouride they’re putting in our water.

        Serious question: Why aren’t they putting Calcium Flouride into the water supply instead of Sodium Fluoride? Why the preference for Sodium Fluoride? Educate me!
        Here’s another interesting article:

        1. Thanks, but I don’t require a “head start”.

          In answer to your question……fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. One such fluoride ion is identical to all others. CaF2, and NaF are simply compounds which contain these fluoride ions. Once released into water by these compounds, as these fluoride ions are all identical, they behave the same. Therefore, the only differences in use of one fluoridation substance over the other are cost and potential amount of contaminants introduced. In the case of CaF2 and NaF, both are about the same, so it really doesn’t matter which is used.

          That said, however, the fluoridation substance utilized in the overwhelming majority of fluoridated systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). Not only is the cost of HFA significantly less than the other compounds, the potential amount of contaminants introduced by HFA is far less than that from the others. In other words, there is no reason to use compounds other than HFA in the large amounts necessary for fluoridation of water systems.

          Once HFA is added to drinking water it immediately and completely hydrolyzes (dissociates). The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts, far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is of no concern whatsoever.

          I’ll get to your naturopath tomorrow.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          1. Better yet, how about if I provide you with a rebuttal piece to the naturopath’s junk?

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

              1. I’m not sure why you have placed the word “naturopath” in quotes. That is what he is stated to be in the bio after his piece. Nevertheless, I have no need to contact him directly. Attempting to change the mindset of an antifluoridationist is a fruitless task and complete waste of time. It can’t be done. When backed into a corner by facts and evidence, they simply fall back on the conspiracy/corruption nonsense and keep marching happily along. Should he wish to contact me, though, I’ll be glad to answer any questions he may have.

                No, my offer of a rebuttal was in fairness to your readers. They deserve an evidence-based response with equal prominence in your blog. As you are obviously afraid to allow this, I will continue to respond in the little boxes, until you get frustrated and claim I’m vioating your policy, or use some other excuse to ban the information I provide.

                Steven D. Slott, DDS

      2. Well, Martin, let’s get into your questions first, then I’ll show you the fallacies of the naturopath’s claims……probably tomorrow for him, as it is already past my bedtime in North Carolina, USA.

        1. “Washing the car, watering the lawn….etc.”:

        A. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of significant amounts of dental decay in entire populations. You may view a number of the most recent ones:


        B. In the entire 73 year history of fluoridation, hundreds of millions having ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, there have been no proven adverse effects.

        C. At less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridation, there is no such preventive measure that even approaches the cost effectiveness of this initiative.

        D. Peer-reviewed science has demonstrated there to be no adverse effects on the environment from optimally fluoridated water.

        —-Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States
        H. F. Pollick, BDS, MP
        Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:343–350

        Given these facts, it makes no difference how much fluoridated water “helps with washing the car, watering the lawn, or make [your] dishes or clothes any cleaner”. Fluoridation is a public health initiative that works as it is supposed to work, with no adverse effects upon anyone, in the most cost-effective manner possible.

        2. “I get more than enough fluoride from toothpaste”

        While one-shot applications of a high concentration of fluoride in toothpastes and mouthrinses is certainly valuable, this fluoride level in the mouth peaks after an hour and then rapidly dissipates. Water fluoridation provides a consistent bathing of the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day….a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Dental disease preventive measures are meant to work in conjunction with each other, not as one or the other.

        3. “Someone must be making $$$”

        The normal antifluoridationist greedy mindset rears its head here. In actuality, as peer-reviewed science demonstrates, for every $1 spent by a community for fluoridation, $1 to $135 is saved by that community.


        So, yes, someone is making “$$$” from fluoridation…..the residents of the communities which fluoridate.

        4. “Enforced medication”

        A. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water.

        B. No one is forced to do anything in tegard to fluoridation.

        In the absence of medication and force, there can be no “enforced medication”.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

        1. Thanks for both your replies Steven. A very comprehensive explanation/reply to my question about the differences between Fluorides.

          With regards “medication”, I beg to differ,and so would the NZ Supreme Court:
          “Water fluoridation is compulsory mass medication, in breach of human rights, the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority vote. It confirmed that fluoridation is a medical treatment as claimed by opponents for over 60 years. It is not a supplement “just topping up natural levels”, as claimed by the Ministry of Health.
          The impracticality of avoiding fluoridated water makes it compulsory in practice, the majority also ruled.
          Three judges held that there was conflicting scientific evidence, confirming that the science is NOT settled.”
          So I suggest that your claim regarding fluoridation being neither medication nor enforced is subjective opinion as opposed to objective fact.

          Here’s something to contemplate. I live in Christchurch, New Zealand. Our water is not fluoridated and never has been. I have three youngsters who have a good healthy set of “choppers” each. I guess the reason their teeth hasn’t rotted out is because their sugar intake is limited and they brush regularly. It would seem that limiting sugar intake would be more beneficial than adding fluoride to the water?

          Your point 4:
          “A. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water.”

          If there are already fluoride ions in the water, then why is there a need to add any? Isn’t there enough in there already? How do you measure/quantify how much extra to add? I imagine differing regions would contain differing levels?
          When you say “have always existed” in the past tense, are you suggesting naturally occurring fluoride has been depleted in recent times? (maybe I’m reading too much into the tense of your statement).

            1. Hopefully your work there involves a bit more than reading, and posting links to, years-old nonsense concocted and posted by antifluoridationists on their own little websites.

              Again, your attempt to discredit me with such nonsense speaks far more about you than me.

              Also again, are you interested in facts and evidence, or irrelevant junk posted on antifluoridationist websites?

              Steven D. Slott, DDS

              1. I’m interested in facts, evidence, opinion, and freedom of choice, Steven. The fluoridation issue is much like the vaccination issue. It is passionately and relentlessly fought on both sides with no quarter given. BOTH sides will drum up facts and evidence to support their position. What they are actually doing, Steven, is selecting DATA and using it to support their case. Personally I do not see how you, me or anyone else can change that situation.

                You have spent many years stating your position on fluoridation, with evangeistic zeal: What have your efforts changed, apart from to harden the resolve of those who oppose your views?
                I didn’t attempt to discredit you Steven. I simply followed your trail on the internet and figured out that you devote an awful lot of time to this crusade. The links I found (a few of the many) illustrate the effect your efforts have had on the anti-fluoridation camp; I doubt you’ve won them over..

                I can only speak for myself Steven. And my main over-arching concern here is freedom of choice: The right to have clean water devoid of additives that I didn’t ask to be put in there. If I go to a restaraunt and ask for “no salt please” I don’t expect a lecture from the waiter on how my vegetables contain salt naturally so adding more has benefits, nor do I expect to hear “sorry sir, added salt is mandatory, but you don’t have to eat the meal you just paid for”.

          1. The one providing subjective opinion in lieu of objective fact is you. The link you provide in regard to the Supreme Court appeals ruling is to nothing more than an opinion piece by the New Zealand antifluoridationist group, FF New Zealand. Hardly a credible source.

            If you read the explanatory press release from the Supreme Court itself…..


            …….you will note that the ruling simply denied the antifluoridationist appeal of a prior court ruling affirming the right of South Taranaki to fluoridate its water system. This defeat for the antifluoridationists was the final say in that matter.

            You confuse rulings with opinions. Court rulings are final decrees by the court, reached by majority vote of the justices, and enforceable by law. Opinions of the individuals justices are just that….personal opinions presented in order to relay thinking processes utilized in arriving at individual votes on an issue before the court. While three of the justices expressed their personal belief that fluoridation does engage the issue of medical treatment, one expressed his that it does not. The opinions of the 3 are no more valid than that of the 4th…..or of anyone else with an accurate understanding of this issue, for that matter. The final ruling of the court, however, was that the regulation exempting fluoridation substances from being medicine under the 1981 Medicine Act was valid, and South Taranaki does, indeed, have the right to fluoridate its water. Therefore, the ruling was an affirmation that fluoride at the level in fluoridated water systems is not medicine under the regulation which exempts fluoridation substances from the Medicines Act of 1981.

            Under your subjective opinion, nature has been “force medicating” us with fluoride since the beginning of time. Have you registered your complaint with the Almighty?

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

            1. “Under your subjective opinion, nature has been “force medicating” us with fluoride since the beginning of time. Have you registered your complaint with the Almighty?”

              No Steven, “God almighty” didn’t force medicate anyone with anything. Now you are resorting to the nonsense tactics you claim your opposition of using.

              We both understand that calcium Fluoride occurs naturally in water. You believe we should alter God’s recipe by adding to it; I say otherwise. Perhaps YOU should try registering a complaint with God that his recipe is wrong?

              1. No, Martin, we both are not under the mistaken idea “that calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water”. I know better.

                Due to its low solubility, calcium fluoride does not exist in water. On the occasion when free fluoride ions combine with free calcium ions in water, the compound CaF2 is formed and immediately precipitates out. The fluoride ions released into water from the breakdown of CaF2 are identical to those released from any other fluoride containing compound.

                There is nothing nonsensical about pointing out the fact that what you selectively consider to be “force medicating ” is exactly what nature has been doing forever. Just as fluoride ions are added to water during fluoridation, a process generally known as “artificial fluoridation”, fluoride ions are added to surface water as it courses over rocks……a process generally known as “natural fluoridation”. The ions are identical in either case, and in either case, you didn’t give your express approval for those ions to have been added.

                So, please feel free to explain how one result is “force medicating” while the other identical result is not.

                Steven D. Slott, DDS

              2. “We already covered that Steven. You are running yourself in circles.”

                Hmmm…..I’m not sure I recall where we’ve “already covered” your lack of understanding of CaF2.

                I’m simply riding on your carousel, Martin. If you don’t want to answer my challenges, fine with me. I just put them out there to illustrate the fallacies of your arguments.

                Steven D. Slott, DDS

              3. Please feel free to continue riding the carousel Steven, I’m busy with family and jobs around the house today and will probably post an item or two later, then I need to press on with some self-penned blogs.
                So, unless you you have a specific question for me or a requirement for my input I’ll leave you to it.

                I repeat that this site is obviously important to you and of value to you because you keep coming back…simple, plain logic. Pleased you’re enjoying it, have a pleasant day mate:)

              4. Martin, inevitably, when antifluoridationists get backed into a wall by facts and evidence with no place to turn, they leave the conversation….. usually with condescending remarks obviously put forth to save face. This is so predictable that it is truly comical.

                Congratulations! You fit the mold perfectly!

                Give Mary Byrne and your other antufluoridationist friends my regards.

                Steven D. Slott, DDS

              5. I actually have a life beyond the internet Steven. Wife, three children, full time job. They take priority over going around in circles with Steven D. Slott DDS. Sorry if that comes as a shock to you or hurts your ego mate. Sorry to find out you’re so lonely you need my engagement to feel good. I guess it gets hard to find folks to engage in discussion with when you’ve built up a certain reputation. Lots of closed doors I imagine.
                I’ve had plenty of experience with debunkers, shills, disinformation artists, propagandists etc, and heard all the tricks and techniques you can think of.
                Congratulations! You fit the mold perfectly Steven!

                I’ve never had an opportunity to become acquainted with Mary Byrne but I’ll be sure to say Hi if I ever communicate with her:)

                I repeat my previous (and unchanged) opinion on fluoridation: I live in a democracy,(well,supposedly),pay my taxes, pay my local council, and get to have my say. I don’t want added fluoride in my water thanks. I’ve heard all the facts and data and the pros and cons. We don’t have added fluoride in Christchurch water, only the fluoride that naturally exists in it. And I like it that way.
                Thats about it.

                Please continue with your facts and evidence and whatever else. You must be very short of outlets to post this stuff?

          2. Sugar feeds the oral bacteria which secrete dental decay causing acid. Therefore, limiting sugar intake to a healthy level does contribute to dental decay prevention. How much the limited sugar intake of your kids is responsible for what you deem to be their “healthy choppers” , and how much the myriad other factors involved in dental decay are responsible, is anyone’s guess.

            The fact that you understand the role of sugar in dental decay is a testament to the educational efforts by dentistry through the decades. In spite of these efforts, however, dental decay remains a rampant problem. Why? Because such education relies upon discipline and compliance for success. Water fluoridation provides some compensation for the widespread lack of compliance with sugar intake recommendations by making the teeth more resistant to the attack of the bacterial acid enabled in part by overindulgence in sugar intake by both those who know better and those who don’t.

            With the problem of dental decay so prevalent, the question is why you would advocate for an “either/or” approach to its prevention, rather than for utilizing every viable means we have available to counter it. Through the simple adjustment of the concentration of an existing ion in public water supplies, significant amounts of dental decay are prevented, with no adverse effects upon anyone. It therefore makes no sense not to do so.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          3. The optimal level of fluoride in drinking water is that concentration at which researchers have established will occur maximum dental decay prevention in populations served by that water, with no adverse effects upon anyone. This optimal concentration is 0.7 ppm and is an official recommendation of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Health and regulatory bodies in other countries may deem an optimal level for their circumstances to be the same, or as much as 1-1.5 ppm.

            Most water contains fluoride generally at the level of 0.3 ppm or so…..some areas higher, some lower. This level is insufficient to provide maximum dental decay prevention. In those systems where the existing level is below the optimal 0.7 ppm, enough fluoride ions are added through fluoridation to bring its total concentration to that optimal level.

            Properly educated and trained water treatment personnel are capable of determing exact concentrations of not only fluoride but chlorine, and the numerous other substances routinely added to public water systems.

            Use of “have” does not suggest a depletion of fluoride in water. It is simply a grammatical method to convey the fact that most water on earth contains fluoride, and always has contained it.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

  3. When you started going into the stale atom bomb conspiracy tale, I started laughing, expecting the rest of the article to be a comical parody of antifluoridationist nonsense. I soon realized, however, that you seriously believe the misinformation, false claims, and misrepresented science you’ve posted here……including the hilarious claim of fluoridation substances being “scraped from the insides of smokestack scrubbers”.

    Congratulations, man! Such an abundance of ignorance of basic facts all wrapped up into one rather lengthy diatribe is quite an accomplishment. I believe you’ve hit on just about all of the litany of comedic claims made every day by antifluoridationists mindlessly reliant upon misinformative blurbs from little antifluoridationist groups.

    Oh….and if you’re going to footnote and list references, it is always a good idea to accurately represent what they state. Just a thought……..

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

Comments are closed.

Next Post

U.S. And China Tussle In South China Sea, China Orders Military “To Be Ready” Test MOAB, Russia and Iran Plan Drills In Atlantic

Thu Jan 10 , 2019
Tensions are continuing to rise between world superpowers. China has ordered its military to “enhance combat readiness” following a test of a MOAB (mother of all bombs); Russia and Iran are planning drills in the Atlantic; and the U.S. just sailed a Navy destroyer through the contested South China waters. […]
Huawei China vs US