1.  Uncontrolled random dosages. 

It is impossible to consistently supply any medication through the drinking water. People are very unique in their sensitivity to drugs and resent being medicated without their consent. Adding fluoride to drinking water invariably leads to uncontrolled random dosages. Infants and adults who drink more beverages will be overdosed. There are many well documented scientifically verified negative side-effects from exposure to fluoride.

 2. No margin for safety. 

There is a negative margin of safety between the "therapeutic" dose and onset of adverse health effects. Increased hip fractures are found at levels 1/10th the "recommended" 1 ppm fluoride level.

 3. We are getting too much already! 

Excessive fluoride accumulates in the biosphere and results in ever increasing levels in soil, food and water. Beverages such as grape juice may have 6.8 ppm. This grossly exceeds the level of fluoride that has adverse health effects. Soft drinks and beers manufactured in fluoridated communities will contain fluoride as well.

 4. Fluoride is a human carcinogen. 

Fluoride has repeatedly been shown to be a carcinogen in cell cultures, animals and humans. In 1956 Dr. John Chaffey, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, noted cortical defects in the bone x-rays of 13.5% of the children living in fluoridated Newburgh, compared to only 7.5% in the neighboring nonfluoridated Kingston. He also noted the lesions were strikingly similar to osteosarcoma. Studies have now confirmed a dramatic increase in osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young males exposed to fluoride during growth of the bones and a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities.

 5. Fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay. 

Adding fluoride to drinking water has not been shown to be effective in reducing tooth decay. In blinded animal studies there was no correlation to the amount of fluoride and tooth decay. In the human populations fluoridation was not effective in reducing tooth decay. In fact, tooth decay has decreased more in some nonfluoridated communities than in fluoridated ones.

 6. Fluorosis is a disease (health effect) caused  by fluoride.

According to the National Research Council fluorosis affects 8 to 51% and sometimes as many as 80% of the children growing up in areas where drinking water contains one part per million (1 ppm) fluoride. Fluoride also can have a deleterious effect on bone growth and cause premature joint and ligament aging. The visible damage to tooth surfaces results in mottled, brittle teeth that are prone to fracture and may cost many thousands of dollars to cosmetically repair.

 7. Fluoridation is very expensive. 

There are enormous health care costs associated with injury from fluoridation. Adverse health affects include; hip fracture, joint and ligament calcification, bone cancers, other cancers, allergy, accidental poisonings and death. The cost of a hip replacement alone is over $35,000 in California. There is a 25% mortality associated with this adverse health effect of fluoridation.

1. UNCONTROLLED RANDOM DOSAGES. 

It is impossible to consistently supply any medication through the drinking water. People are very unique in their sensitivity to drugs and resent being medicated without their consent. Adding fluoride to drinking water invariably leads to uncontrolled random dosages. Infants and adults who drink more beverages will be overdosed. There are many well documented scientifically verified negative side-effects from exposure to fluoride.

The effect of any medication (poison or drug) is proportional to the weight of the individual. Since bottle fed babies are on an all liquid diet they will be dosed the most fluoride. An infant drinking 32 ounces of liquid a day would receive a daily dose more than 1 mg. There is wide variation in the amount of water we consumed. It changes from individual to individual, winter to summer, hot to cool climates, lifestyles sedentary versus energetic and with age. 1% of the population consume over 5 liters of water per day.

There is also wide variation in the level of fluoride found in our food and in the water. The fluoride at the faucet may vary from .1 ppm to as high as 4 ppm according to the EPA mean contaminant levels. Excessive fluoride in the water from accidental overfeed has poisoned literally thousands of people and recently killed a Native American in Alaska. ¹ A disease known as diabetes insipidus causes the victim to drink massive amounts of water every day. Kidney dialysis patients have died from undergoing dialysis with fluoridated city water. ²

Malnourished and minority children are most susceptible to dental fluorosis.³ The athlete or physical laborer who drink large quantities of water will obviously be dosed with far more fluoride than the elderly. Infants, due to their small body weight and total dependence on fluid nourishment, will receive a proportionately larger dose than the adult. The fact that human breast milk is relatively low in fluoride should be some indications of what our creator had in mind for the baby. Infants fed on formula prepared from tap water are at the greatest risk.

FDA scientist have reported that fluoride in the drinking water adversely affects fertility rates in women. They found a very close correlation between decreasing fertility rates in women between ages 10 to 49, and increasing fluoride levels. They also reported that a review of all of the animal studies done to date shows that fluoride affects fertility in most other animal species as well.⁴

2. NO MARGIN FOR SAFETY. 

No margin for safety exists since increased hip fractures and osteosclerosis are scientifically associated with water fluoridation.

The proponents of fluoridation admit the relatively narrow range between the claimed "therapeutic" dental dose and the onset of toxicity. In several countries severe skeletal fluorosis has been documented from water containing 0.7 parts per million (ppm).⁵ In medicine we generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) along the order of 100. A therapeutic index as low as zero is simply unacceptable. The latest research from France on the hip fracture issue found that, "The risk of hip fracture was significantly higher when water fluorine concentration was higher than 0.11 mg/L".⁶ (0.11 ppm)

Several studies have found that fluoride inhibits broken bone healing and contributes to damage from osteoporosis and abnormal collagen formation.⁷ Dr. Jennifer Jowsey, one of the originators of the theory that fluoride might help osteoporosis, admitted that fluoride was producing osteoporosis in some bones and at the same time osteosclerosis in others.⁸ (abnormal and weak bone formation) Dr. J.C. Robins has also noted this deleterious effect.⁹ Drs. Aksyuk and Bulychev found that the consumption of as little as 1.6 ppm water caused premature aging in the bones of 15-16 year old girls, as well as calcification of the inter osseous membranes and irregular bone formation.¹⁰ Remember earlier that I explained that fluoride caused the ameloblasts to lay down irregular enamel. It seems clear that at the same dose level where fluorosis occurs, the osteoblasts also produce abnormal bone growth. These effects may have a delayed response which is not seen until the sixth or seventh decade of life.

In 1990 a large national survey of hip fracture rates published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found a dramatic link between fluoridated water and the frequency of hip fracture.¹¹ This study closely followed a report in the New England Journal of Medicine which found that attempts to treat osteoporosis with fluoride actually increased the disease and resulted in increased bone fractures.¹²

3. FLUORIDE INTAKE IS ALREADY EXCESSIVE. 

Fluoride intake is already excessive. . . children fed "home cooked" foods and formula made with fluoridated water will grossly be overdosed.

In 1949 the United States Public Health Service researcher F. J. McClure reported that the dietary fluoride intake averaged only 0.2- 0.3 mg/day.¹³ In 1969 a study by H. Spencer, M.D. found adults in the Chicago area consumed 3.57 to 5.37 mg/day.¹⁴ Everyone agrees that this amount is excessive. The FDA ruled in 1989 that Fluoride is not a required nutrient since deficiency diseases cannot be produced. Fluoride has been added to the drinking water of 50% of this nation for almost five decades. Every processed food product or beverage prepared in a fluoridated community contains fluoride. It is simply impossible to avoid this toxic waste substance

Few children eat an average amount of anything. It is not the average child that is at risk here. Those unfortunate infants subjected to home cooking are at the greatest risk. It is also the hypersensitive child who is the prime target of this toxic substance, as well as children who consume more than average amounts of water. Infants who consume water based formulas and processed chicken are clearly at risk as shown by the data from recent nutritional studies.¹⁵ Glen S. R.Walker wrote, "An average six month old baby weighing 16 to 20 pounds should consume 2 1/2 ounces of milk per pound body weight per day, making the weight of its daily milk between 40 to 50 ounces. If a powdered milk formula is used and prepared with fluoridated water, the infant will consume, from water alone, well over 1 milligram per day. this is four times the maximum recommended in 1977, by the U.S. Council on Dental Therapeutics."¹⁶ 1 milligram per day for an adult with an average weight of 160 LB is the "recommended level" and equates to 1/8 of a milligram per day for an infant weighing 20 pounds.

It is irresponsible for dentists and public health officials to advocate the addition of a toxic substance to the community water supply without absolute proof of safety. Since voluminous data already exists indicating fluoride is not a benign substance, and is in fact one of the more toxic substances known to mankind the proof of safety must be able to withstand the most rigorous scientific inspection. The fact is that having a community water supply dispense a toxic substance will overdose many of the children

4. FLUORIDE IS A CARCINOGEN. 

Fluoride is a carcinogen.

In 1977 Burk and Yiamouyiannis reported a higher rate of cancer in a broad ten year epidemiological study of fluoridated versus non- fluoridated communities. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) claimed to have found no significant increases. During L. H. Fountain's congressional investigations of fluoridation the NCI Director, Arthur Kraybill, admitted making false representations and numerical errors in their studies. When these US PHS studies were corrected for the NCI "math" errors, they too showed a 5% increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated communities.¹⁷ There are numerous laboratory and epidemiological studies which support our concern for the toxicity of this material.¹⁸

During the Fountain Congressional Hearings of 1977 the NCI admitted that they had relied upon no scientific data, whatsoever, when they claimed 25 years earlier that fluoride would be safe to add to the community water supplies. As a direct result of these hearings independent testing was ordered to begin immediately. Twelve years later they managed to produce a two year toxicological study of rats. They paid Battelle Research Institute of Columbus Ohio, an outside contractor, to run the study.

The Battelle Study

Battelle found a very positive correlation to the amount of fluoride consumed and the size, number and kind of cancer the mice developed.¹⁹ The study ran for only two years or about the life span of the animals. The animals were awash with illness and abnormalities of all kinds including kidney disease, liver disease, blood diseases, tumors, and cancer. In particular the fluoride groups showed thyroid adenomas, dysplasias of the oral mucosa, liver cancer of a very rare type (hepatocholangiocarcinomas), and osteosarcomas of which one appeared in the mid-range male rat and four appeared in high-range male rats. Female rats exhibited dose-related osteosclerosis and all fluoridated rodents developed dental fluorosis.

It is significant that the bone fluoride levels of the high-range were approximately the same as found in humans who live 15-20 years in a fluoridated community. Thus, the tissue levels of the highest dose tested were, in fact, no different than what humans will experience. I can recall no other carcinogen test where short lived animals were exposed to exactly the same level as humans.

Political Manipulation of the Battelle Study

The findings of the Battelle study where in direct contradiction to the frequently published claims of absolute safety. In an attempt to defuse this politically embarrassing bomb shell the US PHS arranged a pro-fluoride committee to review the research. The peer review committee was given an incomplete and drastically modified summary of the data. In the report they received, every tumor was downgraded at least one level. One tumor, the largest osteosarcoma, was eliminated entirely. The hepatocholangiocarcinomas which by itself was a significant finding was reduced to a hepatoma.

Dr. Mel Reuber Opposes The Manipulative Downgrading

Dr. Mel Reuber, the pathologist credited with first diagnosing this unusual lesion, reviewed the pathology slides and stated that he disagreed with the down grading. He stated that his independent review of the pathology slides from the Battelle study showed without a doubt that the lesions were in fact hepatocholangiocarcinomas.

Others tumors were dismissed through what was termed "historical controls". This type of statistical manipulation is not considered by the scientific community as a valid scientific approach. The National Toxicological Program (NTP) committee used the tumor data from control animals in other unrelated studies where the intake of fluoride was not strictly controlled. The fact that some of the control rats also developed similar cancers, was used as justification for the elimination of many of the cancers from the Battelle study. This approach was not valid since the "historical controls" were animals from other studies where their feed contained significant quantities of fluoride. Their actual dose fell between the low and mid-range dose animals of the Battelle study. The tumor incidence they experienced agreed with the predicted incidence from the Battelle study. The committee was not informed that the "control animals", fed commercially processed rat chow, had received a higher dose of fluoride than the low dose animals in the Battelle study.

Dr. William Marcus Opposes The Manipulative Downgrading

Dr. William Marcus, senior scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Division, speaking before the Chemical and Engineering Society stated that in his 20 years at the EPA he had never seen a study where every finding had been significantly downgraded in this manner. His review of the data showed an unusually clear straight line correlating between the dose of fluoride and type and number of tumors developed, including the historical controls. Furthermore, he stated that it is unprecedented for an animal study of a potential carcinogen to be conducted at the same dosage level as humans. In his opinion the findings were grossly manipulated.²⁰

Despite all of these manipulations the study was found to show evidence of carcinogenicity and fluoride was ruled an equivocal carcinogen.

5. FLUORIDE IS NOT EFFECTIVE. 

FLUORIDE HAS BEEN PROVEN INEFFECTIVE IN REDUCING TOOTH DECAY.

ITEM.....
In the largest U.S. study on fluoridation and tooth decay, U.S. Public Health Service dental records of over 39,000 schoolchildren showed that the decay rate (decayed missing and filled teeth DMFT) of permanent teeth was virtually the same in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.²¹

ITEM.....
In New Zealand, tooth decay statistics from 60,000 children showed that fluoridation has no significant effect on the decay rate of permanent teeth.^{22 23}

ITEM.....
Broad-scale studies from Canada show that tooth decay is actually lower in nonfluoridated areas.²⁴

ITEM.....
There is not one animal study which found fluoride in water at 1 ppm reduced tooth decay.

ITEM.....
There are no blinded studies of humans which show a reduction in tooth decay from consuming 1 ppm artificial fluoride.²⁵

ITEM.....
When all published studies were examined by D. Ziegelbecker in 1981, no correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries.²⁶

ITEM.....
Mark Diesendorf studied the decayed, missing, and filled rate (DMFT) in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas in 8 developed countries, over a period of 30 years, and found no correlation to the amount of fluoride consumed and DMFT.²⁷ He did find a large drop in tooth decay over that period, whether or not the community was fluoridated. That is why it is so important for scientific studies to have matched controls. With tooth decay rates dropping, the mere fact that tooth decay dropped after the addition of fluoride cannot be attributed to that single factor.

ITEM.....
When Dr. John Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer for the Department of Health for Auckland, New Zealand and head of the fluoridation program, confirmed Diesendorf's findings, his unpopular finding was changed. He found no significant difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas (DMFT 2.7 fluoridated vs. 2.4 non-fluoridated). Colquhoun contends his reported data was manipulated so that it did show a benefit for consuming fluoride which simply did not exist.^{28 29} He further showed that decay was related to the educational and economic level of the parents.^{30 31} Finally there is now a serious question of scientific integrity in the dental research community. The DMFT rate is very subjective. When is a sticky spot really a cavity of just a spot? There is now evidence that the subjectivity of the DMFT rate has been used to prejudice data from areas where fluoridation has been discontinued (Stranraer).

ITEM.....
Fluoride has been added to the municipal water supply of San Francisco since 1952. Fluoridationists claim that adding fluoride to the water will dramatically reduce tooth decay. Los Angeles is unfluoridated. Therefore, San Francisco should have less tooth decay than other unfluoridated California cities. The highest decay rates are seen in low income areas. Research clearly shows that many children of low income have no tooth brush.

Tooth decay is an infection of the tooth caused by the bacteria STREP MUTANS. The prevalence of tooth decay in the United States varies from one geographic area to another. It is dependent upon nutrition, parental education, oral bacteria, dental hygiene and several other factors. Consequently the DMFT rate will vary from one town to another. Comparison of decay rates must therefore take into consideration the other factors. Comparing one city to another is like a study of two rats. No meaningful results can be obtained from this kind of comparison.

. Fluorosis affects MORE THAN TEETH. 

Fluorosis affects more than teeth.

According to the National Research Council, 8 to 51% and sometimes as many as 80% of the children growing up in areas where drinking water contains one part per million (1 ppm) fluoride have dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is permanent damage to the enamel which consists of white or brown spots that appear on the children's teeth. The process whereby fluorosis is initiated is of interest, since we have a systemic poison which produces a visible effect on the enamel of teeth. When fluoride reaches the cells which make enamel, ameloblasts, become poisoned. As they degenerate they lay down irregular enamel. Instead of the regular hydroxyapatite, they will produce mottled, porous and thin enamel. As the poisoning worsens the enamel may even be absent. At the same time the enamel is being mottled other hard and ligament tissues are being affected as well (See #8).

Political Pressure On Scientists

The scientists, for the office of drinking water, claim they were subjected to flat out political pressure to raise the permissible level of fluoride in drinking water from the old standard of 1 to 4 mg/l. In order to do this, they had to show that there were no adverse health effects.

National Institute of Dental Research Representative warns that dental fluorosis should not be called a health effect. "I think we as a committee need to recognize that this is a departure from the conclusions reached through fifty years of Public Health Service sponsored epidemiological and clinical investigations. I, too, feel that moderate and severe dental fluorosis are to be avoided, but am less certain that we should invert history to accomplish that end." (Memo from John Small, NIDR to Jay Shapiro, Chairman of Surgeon General's Expert Committee, June 1, 1983)

Political Pressure Contradicts HEW

The statements of Mr. Small are in direct contradiction to the statements of the Department of Health Education and Welfare made in 1970 by Frank McClure when fluorosis was originally classified.

MODERATE FLUOROSIS:
"All enamel surfaces of the teeth are affected, and surfaces subject to attrition show marked wear. Brown stain is frequently a disfiguring feature."

SEVERE FLUOROSIS:
"All enamel surfaces are affected and hypoplasia is so marked that the general form of the tooth may be affected. The major diagnostic sign of this classification is the discrete or confluent pitting. Brown stains are widespread and teeth often present a corroded-like appearance." ³²

The EPA Rewrote History

In response to the pressure the EPA rewrote history and stated ". . .there is no adequate evidence of chipping, cracking or loss of enamel associated with dental fluorosis." ³³ The administration then reclassified fluorosis to be a cosmetic defect rather than an adverse health effect.

7. FLUORIDATION IS VERY EXPENSIVE. 

Fluoridation is very expensive.

The health effects of fluorosis alone are estimated to cost Californian's $900 million a year. Hip fractures will add several million more dollars to the cost of health care while not even considering the pain, suffering and death. There are better methods of disposing of fluoride and there are better methods available today for preventing tooth decay.

Fluoride is a major world wide pollutant. It has poisoned livestock and humans as well as lakes and streams of this nation. Last year alone the municipalities around San Francisco Bay dumped more than 90,000 pounds of fluoride in the bay in tap water run off. Adding literally hundreds of tons of fluoride to the nations water ways has contaminated the entire ecology of our country and eventually the planet. It is simply a gross mistake.

 Scientific Fraud 

Throughout this paper I presented the evidence I believe clearly indicates that scientific fraud has been employed in order to support the disposal of this toxic substance in public water supplies. There is no question that fluoride is a toxic substance which readily enters the body and has a wide range of systemic effects. There are real questions of whether or not it has any benefit in reducing tooth decay.

 Safety First 

First and foremost is the issue of safety. Since some people drink excessive amounts of water the extreme example must be used in the calculation of drinking water safety. The average child cannot be used. Furthermore, it is known that tooth decay will not result unless the diet is rich in refined foods and carbohydrates.^{34 35} What is of even greater concern is the daily consumption of a known toxic substance for which there is no proof of safety.

 Political Pressure From Manufacturers 

On numerous occasions, those responsible for the safety of our water have bowed to political pressure and abdicated that responsibility. The majority of developed nations have chosen to not fluoridate their water supply. Fluoride is a toxic waste by-product of phosphate fertilizer production and aluminum manufacturing. Consequently, the United States is one of the major producers of this hazardous waste and, it would be more costly to dispose as a hazardous waste.These companies have found it far cheaper to support "scientific research" into the benefits of consuming hazardous waste and sell it to the cities as a health product than to dispose of this material properly.

 Research Funds Are Diverted 

When scientific research results that do not support the use of fluoride are reported, the research funds are immediately withdrawn and no further report is issue . For example, when Dr. Feltmans conducted a study of prenatal and postnatal fluoride consumption which was financed by a US PHS grant. His preliminary findings not only failed to confirm the fluoridation thesis but indicated probable ill effects to a significant percentage of the population because of allergy to fluorides.³⁶ The funds to continue the study were immediately withdrawn. That is what I mean when I speak of the manipulation of science.

 Fluoride Will Not Pass 

Our research institutions have become prostituted by the huge financial grants furnished by companies with but one goal. Our political system is enslaved by their addiction to the PAC funds available from industries with excess hazardous waste. We owe ourselves more then to become the willing puppets of these industrial waste generators. We must scientifically research very carefully the unusual claim about any toxic material be added to everyone's daily diet. We must be certain not only of its benefits but also for its absolute safety for everyone. If a product fails to pass the minimum NTP specification for biocompatibility tests then I for one, will refuse to recommend that it be used. FLUORIDE WILL NOT PASS. It is,according to the U.S. NTP an equivocal carcinogen. Other research finds it clearly a carcinogen. "In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical." ³⁷ I urge you to consider carefully the effect our decision will have on future generations.

Tooth decay is preventable with current technology. Cancer, hip fracture, and osteoporosis are not.