Last Updated: 22 July 2020 by Marc Woodard

In order to determine whether adding chemical fluoride to our public drinking water is safe, necessary or even beneficial for dental health it is wise to first understand its origins and industrial use history. Yes, I did say chemical, as it is not well known to most that fluoride added to 90% of many public’s drinking water sources is hydrofluoric acid and once used to manufacture uranium and plutonium bomb-grade nuclear weapons. Today it is used within multiple manufacturing firms and known to be one of the most caustic industrial chemicals on planet earth.

Fluoride is also the active toxin in rat and cockroach poisons. What other industries are dependent on fluoride in the marketplace you ask? Semiconductors, refining high octane gas, fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants to cool our foods and to keep us cool; fluorescent light bulbs, herbicides, plastics and of course, it’s added to many toothpaste brands.

It was the same A-bomb scientist of the day that produced the evidence against fluoride injuries to civilians through litigation; which also happens to be the same person that showed low doses of this chemical consumed by humans to be safe. This fact in itself should cause one to further re-think the benefits of water fluorination within the political and health and educational etc., industrial sectors of special interests.

Fifty years ago the government introduced fluoride into our public water facilities claiming it would reduce cavities in our children’s teeth. Of course in the same breath, one must understand with the dawn of the nuclear age, then came the age of nuclear downsizing and excess chemical reserves. Chemical companies were hungry to continue generating revenues by finding other uses for fluoride. The excess chemical surplus no longer useful for nuclear enrichment found its way into our drinking water; much like Monsanto’s artificial sweetener was first redeveloped for something other than its intended use… “Schlatter had synthesized aspartame as an intermediate step in generating a tetrapeptide of the hormone gastrin, for use in assessing an anti-ulcer drug candidate. He discovered its sweet taste when he licked his finger, which had become contaminated with aspartame, to lift up a piece of paper” [Google 2020].

If you don’t know about Monsanto’s Aspartame, simply type it into a search engine: illness and disease followed by the words: artificial sweetener… greatly responsible for childhood obesity and cancer and other health risks. And why the FDA protects and promotes these chemical products within our consumer marketplaces.

Dental organizations, special interests groups, governmental and other advocates sell communities on the ideal, that when fluoride is adjusted and controlled in our drinking water it is safe and good for us. I’ve found much positive data on fluorinated water and children’s dental health care to support this argument. However, I’ve also found just as much data showing when fluoride is added to public drinking water “it is not healthy for the entire population.” And even when looking over our children’s dental benefits – controlling levels of daily fluoride intake for public water facilities personnel is very difficult to sustain, if not impossible. There is also much research data on fluorinated water. Showing no chemical difference between natural occurring fluorides found in nature’s water shed vs. public drinking water with added fluoride. Our bodies do need this trace mineral in minuet amounts…

If “receiving a beneficial trace mineral requirement [fluoride]” was so important, then why wouldn’t public health officials also require other nonessential [fluoride is not considered an essential mineral] minerals our bodies need in our public water supply to ensure good teeth and bone health? I.e., why not add calcium, magnesium, phosphorus minerals for good dental and bone health. So what makes fluoride a required non-essential mineral?

Some of the selling points used to sway voters, fluoride in public drinking water is a good ideal… it will promote “among other things,” less sick days, greater productivity and less dental care. So one has to ask, why fluorinate public water at all if you can simply absorb it through the foods, supplements, drinks and proper dental hygiene as opposed to subjugating a populace to a questionable and unnecessary chemical additive in our drinking water?

What do you think motivates government and the dental industry to promote a seemingly unnecessary chemical “proven to cause health risks for some adults?” And if nature provides the trace mineral fluoride in organic and processed foods, and in bottled drinks, why the continued push to add it to our public water supply? Thinking a little further on topic, how could any agency accurately determine the necessary and proper amount of hydrofluoric acid to be added to a water source and make it safe for everyone? Are there any “for sure” good answers?

Don’t we as parents, health and dental organizations and our schools have some responsibility to educate on good dental hygiene and promote good eating habits? Or is it our government’s responsibility to use our tax dollars to supplement our dental health? I’ve got a better ideal, why not use those tax dollars to subsidize low income families with a preventative dental care plan? Wouldn’t that be less costly to the tax payer and less health risk for those intolerant of fluoride.

Although proponents of fluorinated public drinking water say they are simply adding and adjusting the fluoride levels in our drinking water “safely” as prevention against childhood cavities, others have questionable arguments and reasonable concerns… what are safe levels for a medically diverse and aging and intolerant population(s)?

Again, if it’s not a water quality issue, then what’s the overriding reason to add this chemical to our public drinking water? Proponents of fluorinating our water further argue, fluoride is a mineral found within our soils and plants and is naturally occurring within our tooth enamel and bone and helps the body to resist disease. Is it reasonable to assume fluorinated water would be healthy for everyone?

As you further study this topic it is easy to make a positive, or negative health benefit and/or risk argument. However, the sum of the whole arguments fall apart rather rapidly once you begin to dissect the entire cause and effect found within case studies connected to fluorinated water intolerances within the body.

Even though municipal water experts tell us they can control the levels of fluoride injection into our drinking water at safe levels, you are beginning to understand this is not the whole picture. This is because public water specialists cannot control the sensitivities for those intolerant of any flouride entering body.

Increased flouride absorption tend to be more problematic as the body ages, and/or in combination with immune or other ill-health problems. Our children are also not immune to over fluorination health risks. They are simply least likely to experience health problems because of their younger metabolisms and stronger immune systems.

Even though numerous professionals within hundreds of organizations speak out against public water fluorination: e.g., biochemists, oral medicine, gemology, physiology, orthopedic, podiatrist, toxicologists, EPA, nutritionists, medical associates, Nobel laureates, oncologists, epidemiologists, etc., it has been stated “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.’ And that more people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States” [EPA scientist Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99) and Dean Burk, PhD National Cancer Institute, Fluoridation a Burning Controversy].

Most don’t understand, not only should we be concerned about drinking water and toothpaste, but also environmental pollutants derived from major industries where fluoride is a critical chemical ingredient in the production of aluminum to pesticides.  Within the last 15-20 years a dental revolution against public water fluorination occurred through the discovery of dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is a sign of excessive exposure to too much fluoride.

“Although the proponents for public water fluorinations key talking point is tooth decay prevention, there is just as much evidence to support the undeniable health risks to children” (Brunelle 1987; Heller 1997; Khan 2005).

Signs of dental fluorosis include whitish flecks, spots mainly on the front teeth, or dark spots and stripes (most severe case). If you display these signs then it would be wise to remove this chemical from your diet. Your teeth are a sure sign that your protein enzymes have become mutated to a point that causes one to age at an accelerated rate. If enough enzyme proteins change, or become foreign to the body the body begins to die exponentially! Ill-health risks can occur within the immune, respiratory, digestive systems; thyroid, brain, liver and kidney functions and blood circulation. Other autoimmune problems due to over exposure of fluorides: arteriosclerosis, asthma, lupus and arthritis.

The National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research recommends that if children between the ages of 6 months to 16 years of age should need fluoride for dental prevention and it is not supplied within a public drinking water source… parents should seek dental advise and/or fluoride supplement if needed.

Dr. Alesen (Former president of the California Medical Association) cites: “without a shadow of doubt dozens of International studies show us how Fluoride disrupts the bone building process by creating a ‘calcium out of solution’ situation has caused thousands of relational cases of skeletal thinning fractures, ‘rubber bones,’ osteoporosis, anemia, rickets, calcium stones and crystal buildup in organs and joints.”

Although I wanted to find a positive reason to be a proponent of fluorination of public drinking water, I could find no good reason to support a public policy I was not 95% confident was a health benefit to all. If anyone does a little research over the Internet, they’d likely come up to the same conclusions… unless your special interest or livelihood revolves around the chemical flouride or dental, etc., industry, you’d likely not be in favor of cholorinating a public water source once fully informed.

Although flournation proponents claim there is a dental prevention, cost and good bone health benefit, including less time lost from school and work and may be true for a minority… . In my opinion are dwarfed by the negative health risk and costs on the older population and those allergic and/or intolerant to dietary flourides. I think one could make a better argument there’s a greater than 50% chance a majority of a population’s health is harmed [short and long term] by public water flourination policies.

Consider when you hear a pro-rally cry for public water fluorination. Recall that almost every form of processed foods and drinks consumed has been most assuredly manufactured with fluorinated water. There is no way to know exactly how much fluoride each one of us is receiving daily and more so if it’s added to our public water supply [“the summation of the whole chemicals injested appears to equate to increased health risk”].

Other Consumer Safety Knowledge: Also check your toothpaste labels. Some sample label ingredients read: Active ingredient Sodium Fluoride “ Warning“ Keep out of reach of children. If accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center immediately. The reason this label warning is on the toothpaste is because if a 20lb child happened to swallow a tube of this toothpaste it could kill that child! Another reason why an overwhelming portion of the populace is concerned about a chemical in their public water source… so poisonous that the FDA requires a product warning label to consumers.

My Opinion: Parents should work with their dental specialists to provide supplement fluoride for children that need it. And our government should only ensure they provide quality drinking water to the public without unnecessary chemical fluorination. Why? because this chemical additive does not benefit the sum of the whole population. If anything, it appears to increase health risk to a majority of the population… moreso, than it provides a dental prevention benefit for youth and the adult population.

References,

Acu-Cell Nutrition.  Fluoride, Fluorine and Chloride, Chlorine.

Delta Dental. Vitamins and Minerals Play Important Roles in Bone Health.

Environmental Working Group. Fluoride and Dental Health. 

Glaros, William P., D.D.S., INC. Better Health through Fine Dentistry. Is Fluoride Really Good for Your Teeth? 1 September 2011.

Google search, 2020.

Healthvermont.gov. Department of Health, Agency of Human Services. Fluoride.

Murray, Rich. How Aspartame Became Legal. The Timeline. 24 December 2002.

NIDCR.gov. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.

Prevent Disease.Com. How dangerous is Fluoride to your Health?

Author: Marc T. Woodard, MBA, BS Exercise Science, ARNG, CPT, RET. 2014-20 Copyright. All rights reserved, Mirror Athlete Inc., www.mirrorathlete.org, Sign up for your Free eNewsletter.