doing our best
to keep the information flowing

Fluoridating Utah Niños Hispánico

Fluoridating Elsewhere

Legal Issues-fluoride

Water Operator Safety- The Joe Walls Story

Fluoride Infrastructure

National Fluoride Political Agenda 2006


"Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose" C. Wright Mills

Fluoride Moratorium Friday, August 5th 2005, the majority of the EPA’s Unions (Unions which represent the scientists, researchers, toxicologists, legal counsel and others as defined by law as professionals) requested that the EPA direct the Office of Water to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking setting the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride at zero, in accordance with Agency policy for all likely or known human carcinogens.

The Citizens for Health Action with help from Citizens for Safe Drinking Water placed an action alert on their website that, when clicked, brings you to a pre-written letter to Congress to support the EPA's call for a fluoridation moratorium: All you do is fill in your name and address and off it goes to your representatives.

Chemical & Engineering News August 2004 "...the deeper lessons of this story, going back to classified military research during World War II, are the book's [The Fluoride Deception] insights into the threats to open inquiry in public health and environmental science. Premature closure of debate in science undercuts one of its unique features--a feature that distinguishes it from other forms of fixing belief--namely, science's self-correcting function. Without a scientific culture that supports reexamination of "no risk" results, however strongly held, we may find our public health and environmental policies resting on weak or faulty foundations, which can prolong our blindness to preventable illnesses."

Public Water Fluoridation, Risk Assessment, Impact on Operation and Budget is available on powerpoint. Please email a request.

What are the politics of fluoridating water in Utah?

The 1950's

"It was an era of thalidomide and plutonium; school segregation and human experimentation; 24-hour SAC bomber patrols and classroom "duck and cover" drills; atmospheric H-bomb testing and DDT. The Red Scare dominated the news and physicians endorsed their favorite cigarette on TV. The "Atomic Genie" was out of the bottle and radium treatment was in vogue. And, of course, there was the latest of modern wonders, water fluoridation. Scientists of post WW II America promised the world. And, as with 3-D movies and the Edsel, the promise was far beyond what would be delivered. Fluoridated water was idealized as the ultimate form of 1950's failsafe social engineering. What could be more appealing than to be able to have your children virtually drink away dental decay." ("Copyright 2004 Andrew W. Saul and the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. Reprinted with permission)

Alcoa Aluminum chief investigator, Frank Seamans stated, “there is little solid information on the subject about what harm fluorides could do, what harm they did not do and what the tolerance levels were for people.” Accordingly, “research was encouraged and supported at the University of Wisconsin, Utah State, Stanford Research Institute..”F.L.Seamans, “Historical, Economic and Legal Aspects of Fluoride,” in Shupes et al., eds., Fluorides, p.5

Nationally and internationally, the question raises concerns.

Well respected child-focused organizations, like UNICEF, have an official position.

For an overview of the litigation through 1997, please review Highlights of North American Litigation during the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies

As it is such a controversial issue, even the history of fluoride is recounted differently.

s generally agreed that from the mid 1800's, industrial fluoride contamination, generated more lawsuits than all other contaminants, combined

Critics of fluoridation charge that fluoride is deliberately associated with good health to protect many major industries, especially uranium, aluminum, and steel smelting, from the massive lawsuits that began to be filed in the 1930s for fluoride related damage to livestock, farms, and community health.

There are those who claim that facts have been misrepresented and known risks, ignored and scientific dissent has been suppressed,

The EPA Union, representing the scientists, researchers and other professionals, opposes the practice stating" Our members review of evidence over the past eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposures to lower I.Q. in children. As professionals who are charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare of the public are not served by the addition of this substance to the public water supply."

Some suggest public water fluoridation is a form of mass medication.

The Salt Lake County Health Department prepared the following website. The Very Best of 101 Fluoride Questions The following question is taken from the website

Is water fluoridation a form of mass medication?

No. Fluoride is the 13th most abundant element in the earth's crust and also in the human body. It is present in small and varying amounts in all soils, plants, animals, air and water supplies. Fluoride occurs naturally in varying amounts in surface water (oceans and lakes) and in groundwater. Because of this, our diet contains fluoride and it is then deposited in our teeth and bones. Fluoride is considered a beneficial nutrient based on its proven effects on dental health.

The 2004 Utah Department of Health Statement on Community Water Fluoridation states the nationwide goal to prevent cavities through community water fluoridation is similar to previous public health efforts to prevent common health additive is provided to everyone..since it is impossible to individually identify and effectively treat the significant number of people who are at risk. As a result of these programs, thousands of cases of illness, disability and death are prevented each year with no harm to the rest of the population.

The FDA, the organization that regulates medicines and additives, has never approved industrial-grade fluoridation chemicals for human consumption. Fluoride has not been listed as an essential nutrient.

Some say fluoridation raises ethical questions, that unlicensed medicinal substances, administered to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner is a violation of medical ethics and human rights.

Some say it is good public policy. The American Council of Science and Health states "Fluoridation remains the safest, most effective, and most economic public-health measure to prevent tooth decay and to improve oral health for a lifetime," says ACSH President Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. The ADA promotes it yet some take issue with the ADA's facts. The CDC encourages it yet the effectiveness of the practice has been questioned.

Some contend "Fluoridation honors" were bestowed upon many communities(1), which happen to have the highest cavity and tooth loss rates, by the American Dental Association (ADA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors (AASTDD).

Prior to the 2000 vote, the Statewide Coalition of Utahns for Better Dental Health called in Dr. Michael W. Easley. There are those who disagree with Dr. Easley's 'fluoridation facts' therefore a debate on the benefits and risks of fluoridation was scheduled. Proponents refused to publicly discuss the issue saying, "A favorite tactic of the fluorophobics is to argue for a debate so that 'the people can decide who is right.' Proponents of fluoride are often trapped into consenting to public debates."

Who to believe? Is fluoride a blessing or a curse?

Dental Professionals are advised of fluorides legal risks and some are strong supporters, while some are not supportive of the practice. Some dental professionals, who previously supported it, now strongly oppose the practice.

Professional Associations as well as scientists are divided.

The EPA admits to having no safety studies on siliciofluorides. . The National Academy of Sciences has been asked to research the issue. Congressional investigations have been initiated. A recent Supreme Court Lawsuit ruled against a Health Department and many communities have rejected the practice.

Some say there seems to be dental crisis in areas long fluoridated.

Some suggest public water fluoridation presents serious biological concerns

How much fluoride will cause adverse reactions? That is at the heart of the question. How much is too much?

At the insistence of the director of the Forsyth Research Institute and Dr. Harold Hodge, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix researched the toxicology of fluoride on the brain, having been told by Dr. Hodge the antimetabolic properties of fluoride included the facts that fluoride inhibits cell proliferation and delayed cell differentiation and increases concentrations of cAMP via interactions with G proteins involved with cellular growth, differentiation, cytoskeletal organization and intracellular vesicle transport.

Dr, Mullenix's research indicated a) Central Nervous System function is vulnerable to acute and chronic exposure to fluoride b) effects on behavior depend on age at exposure and c) fluoride accumulates in brain tissues.

In short, fluoride is a neurotoxin and the amount of fluoride ingested is not so important as the level of fluoride in the blood serum. In the blood plasma, fluoride is more toxic than lead. Many professionals agree fluoride is a bio accumulated, neurotoxin.

Some feel fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons.

The US Department of Health and Human Services states “Existing data indicate that [some people] may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluorine and its compounds.” Some people suggest the practice of fluoridating public water supplies could place the elderly at increased risk of hip fractures. Some believe fluoride is contraindicated for individuals with thyroid problems. Some say those with kidney (renal) dysfunction should avoid fluorides.

The American Journal of Epidemiology and others suggest that fluoride increases the risk of hip fractures among women.

A substantial body of evidence (both animal and human) currently exists suggesting that fluoride may cause osteosarcoma, a rare and deadly cancer of the bone.

Professionals say children under the age of 6 months are to have no fluoridated water, either to drink or mixed in their formulas. As a mother breastfeeds her baby, fluoride passes the breast at .01 parts per million, or 1/100th milligram per litre. If a mother makes a formula using fluoridated tapwater, she gives her baby 1 part per million, or 1 milligram per litre of fluorides, 100 times more fluoride than what nature would allow.

Most concede poor dental health is linked to income levels, that children who don’t receive regular dental care, who have poor dental hygiene or who suffer from poor nutrition have a greater incidence of dental decay.

Who to believe? The Health Department asserts fluoride is a beneficial additive with the only risk, dental fluorosis or mild tooth mottling.

Some say fluoride works best on the smooth surfaces of teeth but that is not where most cavities occur. Some say drinking fluoridated water is beneficial yet the benefits are from topical application. Dental sealants for all third graders is part of the Annual Goals for the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Population - Year 2005. If the teeth are sealed, why do we need to fluoridate water supplies?

Both the Salt Lake and Davis Health Department contend time is needed to see the results. According to the SLVHD, there are no baseline studies against which to measure the practice. Additionally, according the State of Utah Oral Health Department, no oral health studies have been undertaken in Brigham City.

Some say there is little difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non fluoridated areas.

The 2004 Utah Department of Health Statement on Community Water Fluoridation also states "Utah adults have dental restorations and decay at a rate that is above the national average. Only 51% of Utah citizens are serviced by community water systems with optimal levels of fluoride." According to the CDC report, entitled Public Health and Aging: Retention of Natural Teeth Among Older Adults, it is reported that Utah ranks number one in the nation for elderly people with the most number of teeth and that data taken in 2000, when Utah had less than 2% of its water supplies artificially fluoridated. As of 2002, only 8% of Davis County people have lost six or more teeth - the lowest in the nation.

The Health Department concedes to having no data regarding fluoridation chemicals long term health effects nor is there any data that determines the short or long term impact of fluoridation chemicals on our closed water system, the Great Salt Lake or Farmington Bay.

Aren't all fluoridation chemicals the same?

Both the Davis County Health Department and the Salt Lake Valley Health Department have claimed fluoride is fluoride. Prior to the vote, they presented their Fluoride Facts as well as estimated costs. The Utah State Health Department agreed. January 2004, The Utah Department of Health prepared a Statement on Community Water Fluoridation

Public water fluoridation chemicals are not the same fluoridation chemicals that are found in toothpaste or prescribed by the dentist.

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) consistently refers to specific fluorine chemicals. The CDC's affiliate group, the ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) says something slightly different. The CDC concedes fluoridation chemicals are by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry and most of the available literature on fluoride toxicity concerns sodium fluoride. Sodium fluoride(NaF) is not what is used in public water supplies.

With the exception of Hill Air Force Base and one small water system in Davis County, the chemical currently used to fluoridate public water supplies in both Davis and Salt Lake Counties is fluorosilicic acid, H2SiF6.

Some suggest that in Utah's unique closed water system, fluorosilicic acid may have an environmental consequence.

The Health Department concedes to having no data regarding fluoridation chemicals short or long term impact on our closed water system, the Great Salt Lake or Farmington Bay.

Some say the amounts we add, upwards of 1ppm,which is 1 milligram per litre, could have a negative effect on our unique water supplies.

Some say it could negatively impact the environment, plants, the animals, horses and cattle as well as fish and game. How will it impact the Great Salt Lake, Farmington Bay or the Jordon River?

How will it impact the brine shrimp and the algae in the Great Salt Lake?

If this is such a controversial issue, why is fluoridation pushed so heavily? Why was fluoridation referred to as a 'stealth' plan, as court documents reveal in Davis County? Why were public debates, refused?

Both the Salt Lake Valley Health Department as well as Davis County Health Department want Davis County voters to continue their support of public water fluoridation, as they contend taxpayer dollars have already been spent on infrastructure.

As less than 1 percent of public water supplies is ingested, some say we don’t need to pay to use fluoridated water on our gardens and lawns, that the costs have been incurred and the infrastructure will have to be paid for whether or not fluoride is running in the pipes.

Why the push to fluoridate? Follow the money.

As it is extremely controversial policy, internationally, all sides of the scientific literature must be reviewed, especially studies elucidating fluorides toxicity from 2000 through 2004.

Websites and books abound with the recently reviewed The Fluoride Deception receiving much attention.

A contentious subject with diametrically opposed positioning, there are few simple answers. Some say all the concerns are of no significance, that benefits outweigh the risks.

Some say the risks far outweigh any other consideration.

Before you revote the issue this November, Waterwatch urges you to consider the issue carefully. It is a far more complicated political question than it appears.

More Fluoridation Links







Copyright © 2004, Waterwatch of Utah - All Rights Reserved