1. Fluoride is an industrial waste product and was once sold as rat poison.
  2. Fluoride intake is dangerously high with many health risks. How much do you ingest per day?
  3. America is being involuntarily medicated.
  4. Fluoride is one amazing public relations campaign.

For 60 years a seemingly silent battle has raged between advocates and opponents of water fluoridation. I say “seemingly silent” because over the past few years, whenever I mention the dangers of Fluoride, the usual reaction is…huh?!!!

I have only once seen a visible public statement—an anti-fluoride bumper sticker on a garbage can in my neighborhood. Friends thought I put it there. Hmm…not a bad idea. Maybe coming to a “garbage can” near you soon…That might be more effective than when I personally handed the Deputy Mayor of New York a report on fluoride at a private gathering. No response, but a little surprising since legislation is pending in New York to remove fluoride from our water supply.

So, I understand learning the truth about Fluoride will be shocking and many may be inclined not to believe me. Fluoride is as American as white bread and apple pie. (I would argue white bread has no nutritional value and most apples today are spoiled by pesticides!) However, I think that when I break down the white picket fence image that has been ingrained into our heads, you, too, may choose to eliminate fluoride as much as possible.


*For ALL possible health effects, please see EPA Union head,Dr. Hirsky’s Senate sub-committee testimony opposing fluoridation as well as other insider EPA letters and independent studies highlighted at the end of this article.

Unequivocally, the ONLY benefit of water fluoridation is to prevent cavities. The risks? According to opponents, including 8500 professionals within the EPA as well as researchers at Harvard School of Public Health, lower IQ, cancer, neurotoxicity, ADHD, pineal gland issues, dental fluorosis, etc.* Risks that seem completely unnecessary especially if fluoride may not even prevent cavities.

The National Institute of Dental Research in 1986-1987, in an 84 city study, showed no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non-fluoridated children. There was however, a far greater number of fluorosis (brown stained and pitted teeth) in the fluoridated areas. A more recent NIH funded “Iowa Fluoride Study,” similarly concluded a lack of effect between fluoride intake and tooth decay.

*It still is. See the history section for details.

Additionally, prior to being one of the ten great public health interventions of the 20th century, fluoride was known as an extremely hazardous environmental pollutant* and sold as RAT POISON! Try finding a reference to rat poison on the CDC website! Rather they state the only risks of “too much” fluoride are dental fluorosis, bone fractures and skeletal fluorosis (an arthritic condition). As for all of the other risks, they have been “officially” dismissed.

Courtesy of flouridealert.org

So how much is “too much” before your teeth look like the picture? The government’s message is very confusing.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the amount of fluoride that can be legally present in drinking water supplies. The EPA set the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) at 4ppm. Yes “contaminant” is their word of choice, not mine!! As some water is naturally fluoridated– fluoride can be found in the earth or in higher concentrations in areas of industry, the EPA must monitor the maximum amount to avoid dental fluorisis, etc. So to achieve the desired health benefit, towns either need to reduce or supplement fluoride to reach an optimal level of .7-1.2ppm. Fluoridation is a delicate balance!

A 2006 National Resource Council report urged the EPA to lower the MCL of 4ppm. 10 years earlier the MCL had been half of this! In 2011, Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended a maximum level of .7ppm, 5 times less than the EPA! The EPA has not budged! I would hate to live in a town that was pushing the 4ppm limit, but yikes! I do live in New York City, where fluoride is 1ppm, above the HHS .7ppm recommended level!

As for the 8500 EPA union members publicly opposed to fluoridation, they say the MCL should be zero, I agree as do many other countries!

97% of Europe and Japan do not fluoridate. Why? Because they view fluoride as a medicine and involuntary medicating is wrong! While our courts deem fluoride a nutrient, the National Institute of Health (NIH) lists it as a medicine requiring a prescription and proper dosage. The FDA classifies it as an “unapproved” drug and it is the only chemical added for medicinal purposes to our water supply.

Courts have consistently ruled that water fluoridation is not a form of compulsory mass medication or socialized medicine.Recent legal decisions have upheld that there is no fundamental constitutional right to fluoride-free water, and that the use of fluoride is not forced medication.

What mother gives her baby Tylenol without calling the doctor to check, is it one teaspoon or two? I probably called three times just to make sure I heard him correctly! So why do we ignore all precautions when it comes to fluoride, a medicinal substance? Does anyone have any idea how much one ingests on a daily basis? We are drinking it, brushing, rinsing, eating, bathing in it everyday. When was the last time a urine test for fluoride exposure was a part of your routine physical?

We obviously all love and want to protect our children, so it must be that we do not know enough to make an informed decision. Very strange, considering the warning on toothpaste says DO NOT SWALLOW and if INGESTED call poison control. Very strange, considering the same prescription rules do not apply when our government indiscriminately doses people, especially with something meant to be TOPICAL rather than ingested!!

Courtesy of Fluoridetoronto.com

On the one side we have the prophylactic protection of our teeth (which does not seem to be working that well, because everyone I know has cavities) versus some potentially severe health risks. Am I crazy, but who wouldn’t choose health over teeth?

As this insane battle has raged for 60 years, I must assume most Americans are so unaware of the dangers of fluoride, for fluoride to even be on their radar. The media must be equally unaware because if they were, it seems fluoride would justifiably be the health frenzy du jour!! A 2012 Harvard study, conducted jointly with China Medical University concluded that fluoride can reduce children’s IQ possibly by 7 points. In my New York world, where smarts and grades are everything, how did the New York Post miss an opportunity for a catchy headline… “Harvard discovered the reason why our children are not getting into Harvard…FLUORIDE!”

For all you wine lovers, so sorry, wine and grape juice made in the US have high levels of fluoride pesticide.

No matter whether you are for or against, the win-win scenario is to end water fluoridation. The advocates who love fluoride, do not “lose” thanks to an available supply of fluoride in toothpaste, mouthwash, supplements, pesticides and processed foods (they use fluoridated water in food plants). For those who do not like fluoride, they can simply try to avoid all of the above like my family and me. Yet, until that time, the opponents, like me, lose. Avoiding tap water is extremely difficult and costly and I believe we all lose because we are all being exposed to way too much of a bad thing.

If not convinced, read on about fluoride’s sketchy past. It is a fascinating history of propaganda, big business and government in bed together at its worst. Sorry to be the one to tell you.


In 1931, a dentist, Dr. Trendley Dean was sent to remote western towns to explore why some communities were afflicted with brown stained and pitted teeth. One town, Bauxite was especially affected.

Bauxite was owned by Alcoa, the world’s leading producer of aluminum. With Alcoa’s help and advanced technology, water samples revealed high levels of fluoride. However, Dr. Dean and those who studied the issue before him, also noted that while the teeth were stained and mottled, very few had any dental cavities. In a “eureka” moment, the question became, how much fluoride could people consume to prevent cavities without their teeth becoming discolored or eroded? Could it be…Fluoride was the answer to bad teeth?! Or was fluoride the answer to an industry struggling with hazardous waste disposal, clean up and endless lawsuits, all because of high emissions of fluoride?

Andrew Mellon, the founder and largest shareholder of Alcoa, Aluminum Corporation of America was the Secretary of the Treasury and oversaw the Public Health Service (PHS). He saw the answer to his problems and immediately funded fluoride research. (Boardwalk Empire fans may not be surprised!)

Gerald Cox, an Alcoa scientist who did a few tests on rats, quickly claimed no cavities. He eventually proposed to the PHS that fluoride, a worthless by product, be used to protect teeth. Oscar Ewing, an Alcoa lawyer and head of the Federal Security Agency, which then put him in charge of Public Health Service, championed Cox’s idea driving national fluoridation.

So in 1947, Fluoride overnight went from the worst industrial pollutant, from a rat and bug poison, to medicinal miracle that guaranteed pearly white smiles. It seems right out of the pages of a Hollywood script– money, power, lies and amazing PR. Public relations by none other than the man who coined the phrase “public relations,” Edward Berney.

Berney is the Grandaddy of spin and no doubt, Carl Rove’s idol! It is said Hitler and Goebbels appropriated his work in formulating Nazi propaganda and the “Jewish Issue.” Following WWII, due to the negative connotations of propaganda, Berney renamed propaganda, “public relations.”

Berney, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was the first ever “spin doctor,” the expert manipulator. His book titles speak for themselves– Crystallizing Public Opinion in 1923, Propaganda in 1928 and Engineering of Consent in 1955. His definition of Engineering of Consent— If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?” “The Engineering of Consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.”

“He advised his clients to send letters to the editors of leading publications discussing what the specific aspects of fluoridation required. “We would put out the definition first to the editors of important newspapers,” Bernays recalled. “Then we would send a letter to publishers of dictionaries and encyclopedias. After six or eight months we would find the word fluoridation was published and defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias.” (Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, p.161)

Berney hired by these industry insiders working for the government, masterfully convinced the American public, that fluoride was needed due to “popular demand.” He created an effective label for anyone who disagreed– “crack pots” or “kooks” or as we call them today, conspiracy theorists.

Yes, read “comments” sections at the ends of articles on fluoride. People love to throw out the label to instantly dismiss anyone contrary to the consensus viewpoint.

Water fluoridation began with a 15 year test in Grand Rapids, Michigan, but in a few years, quickly expanded to 87 cities. They never finished the test before jumping in full force! They never determined if fluoride was truly safe and effective! Now, by CDC 2010 count, 73.9% of America or 204.3 million people drink fluoridated water.

From day one there has been opposition to fluoride despite Berney’s perfectly created stigma of crack pot. Why? Because fluoride in our water is an industrial waste product! They literally took a hazardous waste that they dumped into rivers and streams. A hazardous waste considered the most lethal contaminant to domestic animals by the Department of Agriculture. A waste that exposed corporations like Alcoa to overwhelming damages and clean up costs. But fluoride as a medicine, that solved all the problems. No need to worry about where to dispose of the fluoride. Instead gather it in scrubbers designed to contain the fluoride and then just dump it into the American water supply and claim it is good for you.

I would be remiss not to mention fluoride wastes were produced by the Manhattan Project in the making of an atomic bomb. Some claim the push for fluoridation “grew directly out of litigation against the bomb program and its main purpose was to furnish scientific ammunition which the government and its nuclear contractors could use to defeat lawsuits for human injury.” (Link here for more information) Please read and judge for yourself.

Today the fluoride we drink is no different. The sodium fluoride in our water is often purchased from, where else, but CHINA! Go to this site, alibab.com. You have to see it to believe it. The Fluoride Chemicals Yunnan Co. offers a 98% “water treatment Sodium Fluoride”product with the following description:

“It is used in the manufacture of effervescing steel, and the smelting and refining of light metals. It is also used in fluoridation of drinking water, as a wood preservative, an adhesive preservative. An insecticide, a protective coating for metals, a pickle for steels and other metals,a flux for soldering and welding, as well as a flux and pacifier for ceramic, glass and porcelain enamel.”

Another big source of fluoride are silicofluorides— fluorides that are mixed with silica in the “scrubber” process. They are a by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. However, the silica makes the fluoride chemical unmarketable to other industries who use high grade calcium fluoride in manufacturing. The silicofluorides also contain a variety of impurities such as arsenic and possibly radionuclides. Gulp! So the next best option? To sell it as medicine for our water. Now that makes me feel much better then thinking all of our fluoride comes from China!!!!! (sarcasm)

Whether it is sodium fluoride from china or silicofluorides from phosphate either way, the EPA turns a toxic waste whose disposal would cost the fertilizer industry many millions of dollars into a pure profit item for industry worth many millions of dollars.

A councilman from a town debating Fluoride sums up what we should all be thinking–

“Our water department calculates that we would be buying more than 33 tons/year of a substance that can’t be given to us for free because it is classified as a toxic hazardous waste; yet, we are supposed to accept that, if we pay $0.35/gallon and they slap a new label on the container, this same toxic waste can be shipped to us untreated, directly from the scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry that they use to keep fluorine from becoming airborne and killing everything in sight, and that on the truck-ride here it will magically be converted to a safe and desirable nutrient. The kicker to this scheme is that the amount intended for the targeted children is only 16 pounds of that 33 tons.”

Logically, the town Escondido rejected Fluoridation.

Where advocates and even our courts love to think of fluoride as a mineral or a nutrient, there is nothing natural about the fluoride in our water and as for the wells with natural fluoride, the effects are no different. Remember arsenic, lead and mercury are natural. No one claims they are good for you.


Everything you ever wanted to know about fluoride can be found at the Fluoride Action Network. It is a one-stop shop. I urge you to explore. With prophylactic medicine, the margin of error must be huge. That means the benefit needs to far outweigh any real or perceived risks. For fluoride that is not the case.

For me, the two huge smoking guns are:

1. A 2012, joint Harvard School of Public Health/China Medical University in Shenyang study.

“Children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low fluoride areas,” the researchers concluded. “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.”

While some criticize the Harvard study as it was based in China, the Harvard research stresses their concern with water fluoridation and unfortunately, they were merely proving something many EPA scientist knew years ago.

2. 1999/2000, 1500 EPA scientists, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals, all working in Washington DC formally opposed water fluoridation. Please spend time and read their letter. Then in 2005 11 EPA unions numbering 7000 professionals joined the cause.

Also, please read for yourself, Dr. Hirsky’s testimony during a senate sub committee preliminary hearing in 2000. He testified not as a representative of the EPA, but as a representative of the EPA union that opposed fluoridation since 1997.

The 1999 EPA public letter, Dr. Hirsky’s testimony, the 2005 EPA stance and the Fluoride Action Network all assert the following health concerns:

  • acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function.
  • gene mutations
  • cancer
  • reproductive effects
  • neurotoxicity
  • bone pathology
  • According to the U.S. National Research Council (2006), “several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.”
  • dental fluorosis, a brown and and black discoloration of teeth with pitting and cracking of the enamel. “According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America’s children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1997 statistics). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980’s and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.” Bottle fed infants using fluoridated water are at very high risk for fluorosis.
  • fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin, inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity.
  • use of chloramine disinfectant and silicofluoride fluoridating agents with excess ammonia increases lead concentrations in public water supplies.
  • the results of the doctoral dissertation from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine by Elise Bassin, “link between water fluoridation and a seven-fold increased risk of osteosarcoma in young boys.”
  • hip fractures in the elderly
  • skeletal fluorosis–According to a review on fluoridation published in Chemical & Engineering News, “Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed” (Hileman 1988).

Some other key points from Hirsky’s testimony…fluoride does not prevent cavities!

Kingston and Newburg, New York Results. In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published. In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.

Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures.

What is most upsetting is all this information dates back over 15 years ago and the EPA has done nothing to change it’s stance or acknowledge any contrary research. In fact in 1992, the EPA summarily dismissed Dr. William Marcus, lead Toxicologist and Senior Science Adviser for drafting a memo warning of fluoride’s potential harm contrary to the EPA’s official position concerning fluoride safety. Dr. Marcus sued for wrongful dismissal and won.

Dr. Robert Carton, former head of the EPA Headquarters Union in Washington, D.C. in a legal affidavit:

“It is my best judgment, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation presents unacceptable risks to public health, and that the government cannot prove its claims of safety.”

Over 4000 health professionals have signed the Fluoride Action Network’s petition to end fluoridation. To see the full list or to add your name, link here.

It is hard to dismiss EPA scientists and other health professionals as crackpots or conspiracists when risking their jobs and reputations in order to protect and safeguard the American people. It is also very hard to ignore HARVARD.


Until recently, I didn’t know any better. I gave my children fluoride drops as babies. I never made sure they got the prescribed “pea size” portion of their favorite Dora the Explorer toothpaste. I never discussed daily fluoride exposure ever with my pediatrician or dentist. I never stood over my children at the dentist to make sure they spit out every bit of the fluoride treatment. I felt sick learning children have died swallowing fluoride treatments instead of spitting. No one ever warned me of the risks although they are written CLEARLY on every tube of toothpaste. My kids used ACT fluoride wash. But then I learned and I did something about it and you can too.

  1. I got a water filter for our tap that supposedly filters fluoride and chlorine. I need to get it officially tested . It is on my extensive to do list. I have learned that Reverse Osmosis machines are best.
  2. As I do not fully trust the filter, we also have a Mountain Valley Spring Water dispenser. The water has .1ppm of fluoride from the earth so it is not the crap from China being added, but it comes in glass bottles and weighing the risks, I decided the small amount of fluoride was better than the BPA in the plastic water containers. (Thank goodness my husband is strong. They are heavy!)
  3. We use fluoride free toothpaste. The best brand is Jason. No fluoride, but also no sodium laurel sulfate, no propylene glycol…stuff to avoid.
  4. No Fluoride treatments at the dentist…gasp! They do not share my feelings on fluoride but neither does the ADA despite many dentists pleading with them to change their policies.
  5. We try to eat a healthy diet—no candy and sugary drinks. We brush at least twice a day. We floss and, fortunately, my kids have no cavities. I have one that I got at 40, but my husband has many from childhood despite a lifetime of fluoridated water.
  6. Some research shows magnesium, Vitamin D, E and other antioxidants can mitigate fluoride exposure.

We do not know for sure if fluoride is preventing cavities. How many cavities do you have? We do not know if it is truly safe. We do know that too much is bad, but we have no idea how much we ingest in a day. We know our fluoride in our water comes from industrial waste or purchased from China.

So for the life of me, I cannot understand with all the uncertainty or should I say certainty, why the unwavering governmental stance with regards to keeping this substance in our water supply? With all the other options for fans of fluoride, why penalize those of us who are opposed? Is it not my problem if the consequence is a cavity? It certainly is my problem if the consequence is far worse like cancer and the rest of the list. So why is the government deciding for me what is best for my TEETH? I am baffled. How about you?

To quote, Dr. Robert Carton, Former President of EPA Headquarters Union, “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”


*****New parents please note:

Recent studies have raised the possibility that mixing infant formula with fluoridated water, particularly for infants exclusively on a formula diet during the first year of life, may play a more important role in dental fluorosis development than was previously understood.”

For those of us in New York, we can all lend our voices regarding the proposed legislation. Paul Beeber is the head of the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. I am sure he would love to hear from you and could use your help..nysof@aol.com.

EPA does not mandate fluoridation. It is decided on a state and local level. To check on fluoride in your local water supply. Go to http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/MWF/Index.asp.

For a list of cities and towns who have opted not to fluoridate. http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/communities/

Fluoridation status of some countries: http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to ban sulfuryl fluoride by 2014. Sulfuryl fluoride is used to fumigate places where food is stored, and the stuff gets sprayed on grains, dried fruit, coffee, cocoa beans and nuts. http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/sulfuryl-fluoride-epa-moves-to-ban-pesticide-that-leaves-fluoride-behind/

Notable Quotes:

“[T]he political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues.” – Dr. Edward Groth, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union, 1991.

“Journal editors often have refused for political reasons to publish information that raises questions about fluoridation.” – Chemical & Engineering News, August 1, 1988.

“We are left with compelling evidence that powerful interests with high financial stakes have colluded to prematurely close honest discussion and investigation into fluoride toxicity.” – Dr. Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts University, August 16, 2004.

“The Public Health Service, unfortunately, has locked itself into a position where it has made this statement on the record that there is absolutely no hazard to fluoridating public water supplies and the matter is closed. Now, that, of course, is immediately an unscientific approach.” – Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, 1971.


  1. Thanks for your informative piece on flouride — who knew?! Many of us have done a detox to eliminate internal toxins from our body, but it seems like the list is endless. I don’t know if you have the answers in the back of your book on the dangers of triclosan, which is a ubiquitous antibacterial agent found in toothpastes as well as mouthwashes, dishwashing detergents and soaps. It is my understanding that the FDA is reviewing its safety in light of studies that raise concerns about triclosan’s side effects — including cancer, allergies and endocrine disruption.

    I agree that taking more care to reduce our exposure to toxins allows the body’s own detoxification system to work more efficiently. Of course, we can’t let this become an issue that causes so much stress that it creates more of a negative impact on our health than the toxins themselves. Kudos to you on turing your inspiration into action by bringing awareness and helpful information to us!

  2. I couldn’t agree with you more! My mother was one of the first in Alaska to bring awareness to fluoride being put in the public water without our consent – she went all over the town trying to get enough signatures to get it up for vote and everyone thought she was crazy! I’m so glad more people are becoming aware of this now- I actually saw a site for children that had a daily allowance of fluoride recommended like a vitamin supplement! So terrible, I applaud your efforts to educate people.

  3. Kudos for your research and patience Mara
    This really brings me back to early 60’s
    when I researched and wrote a paper in
    college re all the same ( as of the time with
    whatever “scientific” research there was ). I was heartily opposed to allowing this in city
    water but of course over the years became
    lax re my kids and all the fluoride treatments
    dental offices etc. It is irksome and extremely
    time consuming to have to worry re everything – but we must- ( what do we eat, drink, wear, plant and the list never ends ). Studies and marketing – lies on top of lies. I am now venting – so – just hooray for people
    like you!

  4. Mara, your (proud) mom forwarded me your thorough and very informative blog on popular misconceptions of fluoride treatment. I have questioned for a long time some unnecessary dental procedures including
    the benefits, risks and high costs of implants vs. restoration of a
    partially damaged tooth. Implants in close proximity of a sinus may create
    the risk albeit uncommon of a serious infection that can travel upward in
    the head and require hospitalization for IV antibiotic therapy.

  5. Actually I think this is among the most vital information for me. And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, the web site style is ideal, the articles is really excellent. Thank you for sharing with us. I think it would be effective for all. Good job, cheers!
    Actually I think this is among the most vital information for me. And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, the web site style is ideal, the articles is really excellent. Thank you for sharing with us. I think it would be effective for all. Good job, cheers!

  6. Oh my goodness! Impressive article dude! Thank you, However
    I am encountering troubles with your RSS. I don’t know the reason why
    I cannot subscribe to it. Is there anyone else getting identical
    RSS issues? Anybody who knows the solution can you kindly respond?


Leave a Reply