Suscribe to Weekly Updates
* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

Latest Comments

    Get a grip, I bet the other little girl who...
  • ...
    Love the show - Daniel Mansfield
  • On target
    Everyone I have shared your editorial finds it really close...
  • Retired teacher
    Loved reading how such an outstanding citizen was able to...
  • Re: name correction
    Thank you for bringing the error to our attention, Lorianne,...
Time to Review Davenport’s 60-Year-Old Fluoridation Agreement PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Todd McGreevy   
Wednesday, 21 August 2013 09:46

(Publisher’s note: It’s time for Davenport’s city leaders to carefully and seriously review the requirements, terms, and benefits of a 60-year-old contract that has resulted in the practice of medicating nearly the entire Scott County population with an industrial waste byproduct. The fluoridation of our water supply is happening without informed consent, and even if one wished to be medicated through the water supply, the current practice does not even use medical-grade materials. This issue is no longer fringe. Modern science points to the folly of fluoridation, much like science caught up with the folly of claiming the health benefits of cigarette smoking. What follows are the prepared remarks delivered by Joe Amato to the Davenport City Council Public Works Committee on July 17. The video of this presentation, and subsequent additional public comments, is online at (The documents provided to the city council are here as a pdf.) Fluoride-Free Quad Cities has a meet-up at the Bettendorf Public Library on Tuesday, September 3, at 6:30 p.m.)

Good evening. My name is Joe Amato. On behalf of the coalition Fluoride-Free Quad Cities, I would like to thank you for giving us this time to speak.

We are here tonight to present to you evidence that ingesting fluoride by drinking fluoridated water is definitely harmful and only insignificantly effective, and to request that you, as the responsible legal authority, pass an ordinance to cease fluoridating the public water supply.

We understand the city’s legal department concluded in 2007 that the city “does not have jurisdiction over drinking-water quality and cannot stop fluoridation of the water by the Iowa American Water Company.” This is mistaken.

Mr. Dennis Alt, environmental program supervisor and chief of the Water Supply Engineering Section of the [Iowa] DNR [Department of Natural Resources], confirmed: “There is no state law that requires public water systems provide fluoridation. The decision to fluoridate is a local option.”

Iowa American Water Company [IAW] has its corporate policy on fluoridation posted on its Web site:

“Q. Does American Water put fluoride in the water?

“A. Yes, in many systems. This is determined by local law. American Water and our subsidiaries do not put fluoride in water unless mandated by local law. American Water has a neutral stance on fluoride in water.”

Thus, the Davenport City Council is the authority for deciding whether or not we fluoridate our water. If the city council passes an ordinance directing Iowa American Water to cease fluoridating the water, that would be the end of it.

The first harm we wish to bring to your attention is dental fluorosis. Here is how it is defined and categorized by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the CDC, and what it looks like:

“Dental fluorosis is a change in the appearance of the tooth’s enamel. These changes can vary from barely noticeable white spots in mild forms to staining and pitting in the more severe forms. Dental fluorosis only occurs when younger children consume too much fluoride, from any source, over long periods when teeth are developing under the gums.

“Who develops dental fluorosis?

“Only children aged eight years and younger can develop dental fluorosis, because this is when permanent teeth are developing under the gums. Once the teeth erupt through the gums and are in the mouth, they can no longer develop fluorosis.”

So dental fluorosis only occurs when children under nine years old consume too much fluoride. Therefore, if a person has dental fluorosis, it is proof that they have ingested too much fluoride as a child.

The CDC’s latest national survey found that 41 percent of 12- to 15-year-olds had dental fluorosis. (This is not even counting another 20 percent deemed “questionable.”) This is up 78 percent from the last survey and over an 18-year span. Forty-one percent of a generation will now spend the rest of their lives with teeth mottled by fluorosis, and the problem is only becoming more widespread.

The CDC has itself recognized since at least 1999 that “fluoride’s predominant effect is post-eruptive and topical. ... Fluoride works after teeth have erupted.” So drinking fluoride before age nine causes fluorosis in developing permanent teeth without effectively reducing dental caries, or cavities as most of us call them. Fluoride is only effective when applied directly to teeth. This has been known for the last 14 years. We have fluoridated toothpaste. Why are we still making our kids drink fluoride? Can we stop now?

Non-nursing infants are most vulnerable. The American Dental Association warned in 2006:

“Infants less than one year old may be getting more than the optimal amount of fluoride (which may increase their risk of enamel fluorosis) if their primary source of nutrition is powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula mixed with water containing fluoride. ... If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.”

Most people are probably unaware of this caution. Two states have taken proactive measures on a statewide basis to warn their citizens. The Vermont Department of Health issued its warning not to give any fluoridated water to infants under 12 month of age in December 2006. New Hampshire passed a bill last year requiring water-consumer confidence reports to publish a warning. Rather than warning parents that we render the public water supply unsuitable for their babies, would it not be far better to stop contaminating the water?

The second harm relates to brain development. The Harvard School of Public Health just published a review in October 2012. The Harvard review validated the methodology and findings of 27 separate studies on fluoride neurotoxicity published over 22 years. Here are the key quotes from the review:

“Children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas.”

“A recent cross-sectional study based on individual-level measure of exposures suggested that low levels of water fluoride ... had significant negative associations with children’s intelligence.” (Davenport falls in the cited range.)

“The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults.”

There were more children in the lower-IQ ranges and fewer in the higher-IQ ranges in areas of higher fluoride concentration. This study found a mean IQ difference of 8 points.

We do need to point out that concentration isn’t the same as dosage. Dosage will vary with how much water one ingests. The more water one drinks, the greater the harm from fluoridation.

Our research has uncovered discrepancies between the public-policy pronouncements of several health organizations and the scientific findings within their organization or profession.

The American Dental Association reflexively defends water fluoridation against any challenges. Our suspected reasons, and their conflicts of interest on this issue, are spelled out in the binders.

We find it ironic that the EPA set fluoride standards for drinking water at a level higher than its own scientists are willing to drink. The EPA Headquarters scientists determine drinking a quart of water in Washington, DC, causes one to consume over 100 times the calculated safe reference dose.

You, like most people, probably assume that sodium fluoride, the compound used in toothpaste, is what is used to fluoridate water. It may have been, but now we are being fluoridated with hexafluorosilicic acid obtained from water-scrubbing fertilizer-factory smokestacks.

The EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists opposes water fluoridation. They conclude:

“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking-water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate-fertilizer industry.”

Given the harms caused by fluoridated water, one would presume the benefits of fluoridation must be great indeed to outweigh such harm. This is not the case.

Let us, for the sake of argument, make the strongest documented case for water fluoridation. The 1987 National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) survey found that the average Decayed, Missing and Filled [DMF] Surfaces were 21.5 percent higher in unfluoridated versus fluoridated areas. This sounds significant but isn’t. In absolute terms, we’re looking at a difference between 2.8 and 3.4 tooth surfaces – about one-half of one tooth surface. In terms of teeth rather than surfaces, the difference is less than one-tenth of one tooth. The figures of this study clearly show the lack of appreciable difference in DMF between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.

The ADA warns:

“Dental decay can be expected to increase if water fluoridation in a community is discontinued for one year or more, even if topical products such as fluoride toothpaste and fluoride rinses are widely used.”

Studies conducted in communities that ceased fluoridating water, including countrywide in Cuba, show that not only did dental decay not increase, but continued its decrease.

Finally, a quick examination of World Health Organization data reveals a similar worldwide decline in dental caries, or cavities, among both the countries that fluoridate and the majority that do not. The worldwide decline in dental caries cannot be attributed to water fluoridation. This decline continues even after fluoridation is ceased.

The Fairbanks, Alaska, city council found themselves in your current position in 2010. Fairbanks even fluoridated to the same concentration as Davenport. When they were asked to cease fluoridation, they formed a committee of four Ph.D.s, one MD, and one DDS who studied the science and took public comments for one year. The task force submitted its recommendation to cease fluoridation to the council. Less than two months later the city council passed an ordinance ceasing fluoridation. The research has been done. We ask that you use it to follow their example and free our residents from the harmful effects of drinking fluoride. Please cease fluoridating our water.

Thank you. This concludes this evening’s presentation. I can remain to answer questions, or return at a time of your choosing after you have had a chance to review the provided information binders. For more information, we encourage the public to visit and

Comments (21)Add Comment
No basis for Fluoridation
written by Thomas Chowattukunnel Jr, August 22, 2013
There is no basis for fluoridation. In India they took the fluoride out of the water because it caused a loss of IQ points over years in children and caused mottle teeth and a decrease in bone strength & accelerated cancers. The Harvard study says so. Anyone in the Health profession who promotes this is completely wrong. If the profession truly believes in "Do No Harm" and promotes this behavior without doing the research is committing malpractice & not exercising true preventive medicine. In Canada alone all the cities with the exception of Toronto are Fluoridating the water supply.
Any politician that is accepting money for this practice knowing this is harmful to the general population should be kicked out of office.
Quad Citian
written by BZByrd, August 23, 2013
It is important to remember that fluoride naturally occurrs in all water supplies at some level - including the Missisippi River which is the water source for the most of the Iowa Quad cities. We are fortunate to have a national company (Iowa American Water) that is carefully monitoring our water for safe levels of lots of substances including fluoride. Community Water Fluoridation involves adjusting that level of fluoride to the amount that is beneficial for humans (0.7 ppm). The main benefit to water fluoridation is in fact topical (cavity resistant outer layer of teeth), so that is why I am very grateful to have fluoridated water my community so that everyone -whether young or old- can see oral health benefits! Quite frankly, I LIKE MY TEETH!!! :)
Who wants dentures?
written by LindaRosaRN, August 23, 2013
Thomas Chowattukunnel Jr., is misinformed. Parts of India have extremely large amounts of natural fluoride in the water.

The Harvard study reviewed studies done in China and Iran where the levels of fluoride in water are also very high. (The authors went on the record in The Wichita Eagle that their study does not reflect on the low levels of fluoride in community water fluoridation in the USA.)

Fluoridation reduces cavities by an additional 20-40% over and above other forms of dental hygiene. And there is no *reliable* evidence of harm. The EPA considers it safe for humans and the environment.
written by david lewis, August 23, 2013
The publisher calls fluoridation,"...the practice of medicating nearly the entire Scott County population with an industrial waste byproduct." This is ridiculous. 1st A naturally occurring element or mineral is not medication and 2nd the industrial waste byproduct (fluorosilicic acid) that is constantly mentioned to raise fears simply does not exist in tap water. No one in the public drinks it, or bathes in it or is exposed to it in any way. Repeating this absurd claim over and over will never succeed in making it true.
written by Steven Slott, August 24, 2013
I believe between the publisher's note at the beginning, and Mr. Amato's presentation, they have pretty much covered the usual gamut of entirely false and misleading "information" pretty much used by all antifluoridationists, verbatim. This is confirmed by noting the sources for this "information" at the bottom of Mr. Amato's presentation. "" is nothing but a biased antifluoridationist website of the New York antifluoridationist group, "Fluoride Action Network" (FAN). On it will be found nothing but unsubstantiated claims, out-of-context quotes and other information, misinterpreted study conclusions, and outright misinformation. Similarly for the antifluoridationist website, "". When accurate information is readily available to anyone who takes the time to do a little honest research from reliable, respected, and original sources, why anyone would simply regurgitate filtered and edited misinformation, copy/pasted from these ridiculous antifluoridationist websites, is a total mystery, unless the intent is to purposely mislead the public. Yet, that's precisely what the publisher and Mr. Amato have done here.

First, fluoride is not a "medication" and it is not "forced" upon anyone. Fluoride is a mineral which the FDA must classify as a drug for the sole reason of its stated use in water as a therapeutic rather than as a disinfectant. No other reason. As the EPA regulates all mineral additives to water, it is the EPA, not the FDA, which controls and regulates fluoride in water. Fluoridated water meets all NSF Standard 60 certification requirements as mandated by the EPA. There are no dosage requirements for fluoride, nor is there is any need for "informed consent, any more than is there any need of such for chlorine additives chlorine in water. Were fluoride at this concentration a "medication", the FDA, not the EPA would have full control over it. The "forced medication" gambit has been repeatedly attempted in courts by antifluoridationists, and has been rejected each and every time by those courts, for the reasons just stated.

Fluorosis. Why would anyone want to trust the unqualified opinion of Joe Amato of the Public Works Committee, than the opinion of dentists who have a minimum of 4 years of post-graduate intensive education and training in the healthcare and treatment of the human body specializing in the oral cavity and teeth? Yes, Mr. Amato can copy and paste information he, as an unqualified layperson, deems relevant to dental fluorosis, as can anyone. But he has not the education, qualifications, credentials, or decades of experience of the dentists who deem dental fluorosis not to be a problem in relation to water fluoridation. The truth is that the only dental fluorosis which may occur in any way attributable to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm in the absence of abnormally high exposure to other sources of fluoride intake, is mild to very mild. These are barely detectable effects which pose no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of the teeth. In fact, as Kumar, et al have demonstrated that mildly fluorosed teeth are more resistant to decay, many do not consider mild dental fluorosis to be an undesirable effect, much less an adverse one

The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. SchoolchildrenHiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH

To be continued........

Steven D. Slott, DDS
written by Steven Slott, August 24, 2013
........Fluorosis continued

The CDC report referenced by Mr. Amato is actually one by Beltran-Aguilar, et al. Here are some facts Mr. Amato omitted:

That "41% of all children" is composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign conditions requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The other 3.8% are those with moderate dental fluorosis, a condition which manifests as white areas on teeth. Whether or not these moderately fluorosed teeth require any restoration depends on the preferences of the patients and their parents. Some may be concerned enough with the cosmetics to desire treatment, others may not. There was not enough evidence of severe dental fluorosis to even be quantifiable.

The percentage of that 3.8% who may desire cosmetic treatment does not override the dental decay-preventing benefit to the whole population. The cosmetics alone from dental decay are far worse than any from moderate dental fluorosis, and this not even take into account the amount of pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection that is prevented by water fluoridation. The cost savings of preventing the need for restoration of decayed teeth completely dwarfs any expenses involved in cosmetic treatment of the very few with moderate fluorosis who desire to have any at all.

--------Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.
A consistent habit of antifluoridationists such as Mr. Amato is to present statements out of context such that they appear to support their position. In the case of his quote about CDC opinion on topical vs. systemic fluoride action, here is the COMPLETE quote:
“The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical and that the effect depends on fluoride being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva. Thus, adults also benefit from fluoride, rather than only children, as was previously assumed.”

Also from this CDC report:

“Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low --- approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas (27). This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity. However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1--2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization.”
The preventive action can thus be seen to be both topical and systemic. As stated by the CDC, the constant maintenance of low concentrations of fluoride in the mouth has been shown to be a very effective means of decay prevention. Water fluoridation does exactly this. Additionally, as is seen in the second quote from the CDC, fluoride in the oral cavity increases the salivary content to the level where is sufficient to prevent decay. As it maintains this level for 1-2 hours, water fluoridation which maintains low concentrations of fluoride throughout the day, is the most effective means of keeping the saliva content at that high level constantly.

to be continued.......
Steven D. Slott, DDS
written by Tom N, August 27, 2013
Slott is an online pusher of an unapproved drug that for subsets of the population is not safe to ingest. Certain social organizations which he is a member need to defend a failed public health program which for decades they've endorsed. With the trend strongly running against fluoridation his mission in life is to post incessantly to shore up public opinion.
Sometimes he lies in his posts when he thinks it serves his purpose. Understand that for rabid fluoridation supporters like Slott "the end justifies the means". Misleading about fluoridation's safety and efficacy is what they need to resort to as science is NOT on their side.
Slott's online misinformation campaign include making statements that show a void in his knowledge of basic science. Slott resorts to condescending rants when he is proven dead wrong on matters of fundamental science involving the toxicity and harm done by fluoride even in small amounts.
I will provide proof of my assertions in my next post.
Fluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing
written by nyscof, August 27, 2013
Over 4,500 professionals (including 360 dentists and 554 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped because fluoridation is ineffective and harmful. See statement:

Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

Industrial-grade fluoridation chemicals currently added to US public water supplies contain cancer-causing arsenic, costing society 1 - 14 billion dollars annually for arsenic-induced cancers, according to research published in Environmental Science & Policy, led by former EPA senior scientists who are experts in chemical risk assessment.

Most dentists are trained to use politics and not science to promote fluoridation, according to Armfield and Melbye in the Journal of the American Dental Association . The researchers write: "Studies of dentists' attitudes about water fluoridation suggest that a lack of knowledge and preparedness are barriers to discussing the topic ... more than one-half of the respondents believed they needed more information and training on the issue.

Armfield and Melbye postulate that: "Dentists' lack of self-efficacy with respect to critically evaluating scientific literature may help to explain their reluctance to promote water fluoridation in their clinical practices." Other studies how dentists don’t keep current on new fluoride science, e.g. this research by Yoder

Dr. Yolanda Whyte, a primary care pediatrician, explains why she no longer supports water fluoridation.

Fluoridation is an "unacceptable risk," says Public Health Professor Niyi Awofeso (Public Health Ethics, August 2012). He writes, "There is insufficient ethical justification for artificial water fluoridation" because no evidence supports the assertion that artificial fluoridation reduces social disparities in cavity incidence, fluoridation’s effectiveness is questionable, potential adverse effects of fluoride, such as hypothyroidism and bone fractures, have been reported in scholarly journals and fluoridation chemicals are contaminated with lead, arsenic and mercury.

In 2006, a National Research Council expert panel published a fluoride report which revealed that fluoride, even at low doses added to water supplies, can be especially harmful to the thyroid gland, kidney patients, babies, seniors and people who drink high amounts of water. They also revealed critical fluoride safety studies have never been done and studies linking fluoride to cancer and lower IQ are plausible.

Thirty seven human studies now link fluoride to lowered IQ, some at levels considered safe in the US. See:

After 68 years of water fluoridation, the Centers for Disease Control reports that up to 60% of 12-15 year-olds are affected with fluoride overdose symptoms – dental fluorosis, white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. Yet, the CDC says More young kids face cavity crisis in US

Tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities and states because Americans can’t afford dental care. New dental professionals are being created. New dental schools opened, private dentists’ hired more staff, dental expenditures have gone up substantially dentists and tooth decay has become big business. Fluoridated toothpaste, alone is a multi-billion dollar international market.

Emergency rooms are flooded with people in dental pain, costing taxpayers millions of dollars, because 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients, 130 million Americans don’t have dental insurance. Many of those with insurance can’t afford dentistry’s high out-of-pocket costs. No American is or ever was fluoride-deficient. Too many are dentist-deficient.

The CDC reports that 225 less communities adjusted for fluoride between 2006 and 2008. About 100 US and Canadian communities rejected fluoridation since 2008; many in 2012.

Recently, both Wichita, Kansas and Portland, Oregon rejected fluoridation 60% to 40%. Hamilton, NZ, councilors voted 7-1 to stop 50 years of fluoridation after councilors listened to several days of testimony from those for and against fluoridation (June 2013) Hamilton joins 30 other regional NZ that don’t fluoridate.

Windsor, Ontario, and Cairns, Australia stopped fluoridation this year. Windsor’s Mayor, who has a chemistry background, explains why he voted with the majority to stop 51 years of water fluoridation in this radio interview.


Pt 2 Fluoridation Ineffective, Harmful, Unethical, Wa$teful, studies show
written by nyscof, August 27, 2013
Part 2

In Nebraska, 80% of the towns voting chose to opt out of a fluoridation law (2008-2010)

Israel will stop fluoridation in 2014, citing health concerns.

Most of Western Europe and major world cities do not fluoridate the water. Yet tooth decay rates are similar.

According to 2004 NYS Department of Health studies, highly fluoridated NYS counties do not have less tooth decay than more fluoridated NYS counties. See chart:

Since the professionals' statement was first issued, the following new studies were published:

-- Fluoride is one of 213 known brain-toxic chemicals that may lower the intelligence of generations of children, reports renowned physician and 30-year brain researcher, Dr. Phillipe Grandjean in his new book, “Only One Chance: How Environmental Pollution Impairs Brain Development,” (2013)

-- Water fluoride chemicals boosts lead absorption in lab animals’ bones, teeth and blood, was reported by Sawan, et al. (Toxicology 2/2010). Earlier studies already show children’s blood-lead-levels are higher in fluoridated communities, reports Sawan’s research team.

-- State University of New York researchers found more premature births in fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities, according to a presentation made at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting on November 9, 2009 in Philadelphia.

-- Scientific American editors wrote in January 2008, "Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland"

-- A study in the Fall 2008 Journal of Public Health Dentistry reveals that cavity-free teeth have little to do with fluoride intake. Researchers report, "The benefits of fluoride are mostly topical…while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake."

-- Research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). indicates that blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups. (13) Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults

-- Fluoride avoidance reduced anemia in pregnant women, decreased pre-term births and enhanced babies birth-weight, concludes leading fluoride expert, AK Susheela and colleagues, in a study published in Current Science (May 2010). Science Reprint.pdf
written by Rae Nadler-Olenick, August 27, 2013
Here: and here: are the MSDS (product specification) sheets for natural fluoride - Calcium Fluoride/fluorspar - and the fluoridation chemical (hydro)fluorosilicic acid from a company that sells both. Note the diamond diagram toward upper right showing in blue the degree of health hazard. The former is bad; the latter is worse. They are NOT the same substance. Read the sheets carefully. Compare. Pass it on.
What Steven Slott has said
written by Tom N, August 27, 2013
The following quote posted online by Steven Slott speaks for itself:
"BIG mistake to not be concerned about fluoride. The government is using it to control your mind into accepting the delusion that the aluminum foil has you protected. You vastly underestimate the extent of this conspiracy."
written by Jack Cook, August 27, 2013
No matter how you look at it, fluoridation is the mass medication of an entire population without a prescription and without informed individual consent using a substance that is used as a legend drug that has not been approved by the FDA. It is applied across an entire population with the expectation that it will affect everyone in the same way, no matter what their current medical history or health may be. And, the drug is administered for a lifetime (hexafluorosilisic acid is a bioaccumulative neurotoxin) with no individual monitoring by qualified medical personnel. This makes it illegal in every state of the U. S..

The fluoride used in most fluoridation is a pollution by product of the phosphate fertilizer and metal smelting industries. It is so toxic and caustic that it can eat through concrete. It is illegal to dump this slurry into any natural body of water. Yet, if they pump it into rubber-lined tankers, and truck it to your local water utility, it magically becomes a "product." It is actually a great way for industry to rid itself of an expensive and difficult to handle pollutant while getting paid to do so.

The sordid history of how the public was sold on this insidious health intervention can be seen in the book, "The Fluoride Deception," by former BBC journalist Christopher Bryson. And, the scientific evidence against its continuation can be read in the carefully researched book, "The Case Against Fluoride, How Hazardous Waste Ended Up In Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That keep It There," by Paul Connett, PhD, James Beck, MD, PhD, and H. S. Michlem, DPhil. Or, you can visit where a tremendous amount of scientific, legal and ethics information on the issue may be studied.

The movement against fluoridation has become so successful across the U. S., the agencies and dental organizations that loyally and blindly support this ineffectual program are joining with the PEW Trusts to spend tremendous amounts of propaganda money to counter grass roots efforts by concerned citizens to end what is essentially a 68 year scam that started with the U. S. Public Health Service and the war industry in 1945. This is money that would better be spent on treating dental disease and education programs for poor patients who would otherwise not receive dental care or understand that the real cause of tooth decay is poor diet, poor dental habits and the inability to afford consistent professional dental care.
Mind control, aluminum foil - really??
written by BZByrd, August 27, 2013
Wow. Cite your source, Tom. Stop the fear-mongering and leave community water fluoridation alone.

If you truly fear excessive fluoride, look to the private country wells that are not being tested. You will not find much excessive fluoride in community water sources. However, there are a few aquifers in Iowa that have higher than recommended fluoride naturally occurring(although most are very low in fluoride). There used to be a program to help country folk check their water supplies - let's fund that again. Help those folks know what is in their water; the cities are fine.

Do you know the fluoride level in your water supply? You can look up your community's water fluoride level:
Jack Cook nails it!
written by Tom N, August 27, 2013
Your well stated post is factual and impossible to honestly refute.
written by BZByrd, August 27, 2013
Looks like I am the only local person here...
Guess it's a non-issue then. :)
BZByrd requested the source for Steven Slott's statement alleging conspiracy to promote fluoridation.
written by Tom N, August 27, 2013
Slott wrote that bizarre comment a few days ago in the Tampa Bay Times regarding their online article about fluoridation backers declining to debate Dr. Paul Connett in Brooksville, Florida. That debate is scheduled for tonight at the City Hall.
Debates are old-school
written by BZByrd, August 27, 2013
It's no wonder no one wants to debate. Connet is a gifted debater. He could have had a successful career as a speech and debate coach. Debates are more about power and control as the alpha males circle eacher, seeking reaction. Intellectual dialog is better. However, I do love the man's rubber chicken tie!
written by Tom N, August 27, 2013
Here is another bizarre quote from the aforementioned article - written by Steven Slott, DDS and supposed fluoridation advocate:
"See, that's the beauty of fluoride. As it mercilessly eats away at every organ in your body, it also numbs your brain to the point where you don't know whether I am a government conspirator who has you in my sights, or simply an innocuous alien visiting from another galaxy."

The truth is oft said in jest.
I'm local
written by Scott Carlson, August 27, 2013
It would be bad enough if it were only naturally occurring calcium fluoride or even pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride but it's not. It's hexafluorosilicic acid. It is poison at any dose. It is in our water because bad people want it there.

The Fluoride Deception clearly and irrefutably documents the origins of tap water fluoridation. Harold Hodges anyone?

It is no big surprise that the "white coats" come out of the woodwork to defend it. They are paid to do so.
It's the fluoride ion that is beneficial
written by BZByrd, August 29, 2013
Nice to see a local! Regardless of the source (hexafluorosilicic acid vs. CaF or NaF) it is the free fluoride ion in water that provides benefits to teeth. Both types of product supply that. I don't think you would get much argument from dentistry if a different form of fluoride was practical to use and reasonably priced. I understand that the hexafluorosilicic acid is in liquid form and therfore water companys can manage it very precisely.
Having seen some of the devastating effects of dental caries on people right here in the quad cities, it is really important to have a multi-faceted preventive approach. This includes community water fluoridation in addition to healthy diets, good oral hygiene, and dental care. We do need those "white coats" for their research and professional insights. You and I can swap stories and use our best layman's logic, but there is value in looking to the vast body of research that supports community water fluoridation: Weight of Evidence.pdf
Flouride-Free Qaud Cities
written by Kenneth Tennant, August 30, 2013
Where is the Double-Blind, Randomized scientific study to support flouridating the water ? Can any one please have these city councilmen LOOK at the junk science that was used as an argument for flouridation ? LOOK at that and take it from there. A Federal Judge in Pennsylvania declared that fluoridating the water is probably the biggest fraud perpetrated on the American people in the history of this country (he didn't hear about the Vaccine fraud). No one mentioned the 1,000 former EPA scientists, lawyers etc that are clamoring to get flouride OUT of American municipal water supplies.

Write comment
smaller | bigger