The Case Against Water
Fluoridation
Paul Connett, PhD
Director, Fluoride Action Network
FluorideALERT.org
Hartford, CT, June 26, 2013
Introduction
I
have spent 17 years researching the
fluoridation issue, first as a professor
of chemistry specializing in
environmental chemistry and
toxicology, and now as director of the
Fluoride Action Network.
Outline of my presentation
1. Why fluoridation should not have started.
2. Key moments since 1990 that should have
ended fluoridation.
3. The very poor science underpinning the
case for fluoridation.
4. Better alternatives to fight tooth decay
Part 1.
Why Fluoridation should
never have started
1. We should never use the public water
supply to deliver medicine. WHY?
2. You can’t control who gets the medicine.
3. You can’t control the DOSE people get.
4. It violates the individual’s right to
informed consent to medicine.
5) Fluoride is NOT a nutrient.
There is not a single process inside the
body that needs fluoride to function
properly, however
6) Fluoride is a known toxic substance that
interferes with many fundamental
biochemical functions
In other words: it doesn’t do any good to
swallow fluoride and it has the potential to
cause harm
7) 1 ppm fluoride (1 mg/liter) is NOT small.
It is 250 times the level in mothers milk in
a non-fluoridated community (0.004 ppm,
NRC , 2006, p. 40)
8) A bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated
community is getting 250 times the
fluoride dose that nature intended. Who
knows more about what the baby needs –
nature or a bunch of dentists from Chicago
(ADA)?
9) The fluoridating chemicals used are not the
pharmaceutical grade chemicals used in
dental products, but are arseniccontaminated industrial waste products
obtained from the fertilizer industry.
10) The dental lobby has controlled this
debate for far too long. There are more
tissues in the body than teeth. It is time to
get dentistry out of the public water supply
and back into the dental office.
The vast majority of
countries do NOT
fluoridate their water
97% of Western European population now
drinks Non-Fluoridated Water
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Northern Ireland
Norway
Scotland
Sweden
Switzerland
97% of Western European population now
drinks Non-Fluoridated Water
Austria*
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France*
Germany*
Greece
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Northern Ireland
Norway
Scotland
Sweden
Switzerland*
*Some fluoridate their salt
According to WHO data
tooth decay in 12-year-olds
is coming down as fast
in F as NF countries
SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)
Supporting documents:
Neurath, 2005*
Cheng, 2007*
Part 2
Some of the events since
1990 which should have
forced an end to water
fluoridation
(An ugly fact can destroy a
beautiful theory)
Ugly Fact # 1
A series of studies since
1980 indicate that the
notion that swallowing
fluoride reduces tooth decay
is very weak
Between 1980 and 1990
A number of articles began to
appear in major journals indicating
that there was very little difference
in tooth decay between fluoridated
and non-fluoridated communities
Leverett in Science, 1982
Diesendorf in Nature, 1986*
Gray, 1987
Colquhoun*
This prompted the NIDR to conduct
the largest survey of tooth decay
ever carried out in the US.
NIDR survey
The
teeth of over 39,000
children in 84 communities
were examined.
Yiamouyiannis
Using the FOIA Dr. John Yiamouyiannis obtained
the DMFT (= decayed, missing and filled permanent
TEETH), data for children aged 5-17
 His plot of the data showed no statistical difference
between children from N-F and F communities

NIDR - Yiamouyiannis, 1990
NIDR - Brunelle and Carlos (1990)
 Brunelle
and Carlos increased
sensitivity by factor of five
(approximately) by comparing DMFS
(= decayed, missing and filled
permanent SURFACES - 5 surfaces to
most teeth, 4 in the cutting teeth)
They measured tooth decay as Decayed Missing and
Filled Tooth Surfaces (DMFS). There are 4 or 5 surfaces
per tooth.
Decayed Missing and Filled surfaces (DMFS)
There are 4 surfaces to the top six and bottom six cutting
teeth and 5 surfaces on all the other teeth.
128 tooth surfaces in all.
Brunelle and Carlos (1990) measured tooth decay as
Decayed Missing and Filled Tooth Surfaces (DMFS)
See Table 6 in their paper.
2.8
DMFS
F
The largest US survey of tooth decay
3.4
DMFS
NF
2.8
DMFS
F
Brunelle and Carlos, 1990
3.4
DMFS
NF
2.8
DMFS
F
Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in DMFS
= 0.6 tooth surfaces (5 surfaces to a tooth)
Not only was this saving very
small (0.6 of one tooth
surface) but it was not even
shown to be statistically
significant!
Supporting documents:
Yiamouyiannis, 1990*
Brunelle and Carlos, 1990*
(see Table 6)
Warren et al. (2009)
(the “Iowa” study)
 Warren
et al., 2009, measured
tooth decay as a function of
individual exposure to fluoride.
 They found no relation between
tooth decay and amount of fluoride
ingested.
“These findings suggest that
achieving a caries-free status
may have relatively little to do
with fluoride intake…”
Supporting document Warren et
al., 2009*
Ugly Fact # 2
CDC (1999)
Fluoride’s predominant
benefit is TOPICAL not
systemic
CDC, MMWR, 48(41); 933-940,
Oct 22, 1999*
 “Fluoride’s
caries-preventive
properties initially were attributed
to changes in enamel during tooth
development... However, laboratory
and epidemiologic research suggest
that fluoride prevents dental caries
predominantly after eruption of the
tooth into the mouth, and its actions
primarily are topical…”
If fluoride works on the outside of
the tooth not from inside the body
Why swallow fluoride and expose every
tissue of the body to a toxic substance,
when you can brush it on your teeth and
spit it out?
And why put it in the drinking water and
force it on people who don’t want it?
Ugly Fact # 3
The U.S. National Research
Council published the
results of its 3-year review
of fluoride’s toxicity
(NRC, 2006)
National Research Council (2006)
NRC found that fluoride could
cause many harmful effects in
the body in countries with high
natural levels of fluoride in
their water.
Independent scientists have
argued that there is NO
ADEQUATE MARGIN OF
SAFETY to protect everyone
drinking fluoridated water from
some of these harmful effects.
An exposure analysis in Chapter
2 of the NRC report shows that
subsets of population drinking
F -water (including bottle-fed
infants) are exceeding EPA’s
safe reference dose (0.06
mg/kg/day)
See supporting document*
John Doull (chairman, NRC, 2006 Review)


“What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the
status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too
long really—and now we need to take a fresh look . . . In
the scientific community people tend to think this is
settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out
and says this is one of the top 10 greatest achievements
of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But
when we looked at the studies that have been done, we
found that many of these questions are unsettled and we
have much less information than we should, considering
how long this [fluoridation] has been going on.”
Scientific American, Jan 2008.
Ugly Fact # 4
Fluoridation may actually be
killing a few young boys
each year
Bassin et al., 2006
Osteosarcoma
 Bassin
found that young boys exposed to
fluoridated water in their 6th,7th or 8th
years, had a 5-7 fold increase in
developing osteosarcoma by the age of
20, compared to non-exposed boys.
 Her 2006 study has never been refuted.
 The study promised by Douglass (Kim et
al., 2011) failed to do so.
Supporting documents:
Bassin et al., 2006*
Kim et al., 2011*
Ugly Fact # 5
CDC (2010)
Confirms that American kids
are being hugely overexposed to fluoride
Dental Fluorosis
Early promoters thought that at 1 ppm F
they could reduce tooth decay and limit
dental fluorosis to 10% of children in
its very mild form.
Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis
in the United States, 1999-2004
November 2010: CDC update on fluorosis
by Beltrán-Aguilar et al.
 See supporting document*

CDC, 2010
CDC, 2010
41%
Impacts up to 25% of tooth surface
Very Mild Dental Fluorosis
CDC, 2010
41%
Impacts up to 50% of tooth surface
Mild Dental Fluorosis
CDC, 2010
41%
Impacts 100% of tooth surface
Moderate- Severe
Dental Fluorosis
See also CDC (2005)
An earlier report from the CDC
had found that Black and Hispanic
Americans had higher rates of
dental fluorosis (especially the
more serious categories) than
White Americans. See supporting
document CDC, 2005, Table 23.*
A KEY QUESTION
When fluoride is damaging the
baby’s growing tooth cells
(causing dental fluorosis) what is it
doing to its other developing
tissues?
Ugly Fact # 6
There is extensive evidence
that fluoride damages the
brains of animals and
humans
Over 40 animal studies show that prolonged
exposure to fluoride can damage the brain.
19 animal studies report that mice or rats
ingesting fluoride have an impaired capacity to
learn and remember.
12 studies (7 human, 5 animal) link fluoride with
neurobehavioral deficits
3 human studies link fluoride exposure with
impaired fetal brain development
37 out of 43 published studies show that
fluoride lowers IQ
To access any of these brain studies
1) Go to FluorideALERT.org
2) Click on RESEARCHERS
3) Click on Health Data Base
4) Click on Brain Effects
Or go direct to
FluorideALERT.org/issues/health
/brain
Varner et al. (1998)
Gave rodents 1 ppm fluoride in their water
for one year. The exposed rodents had
 kidney damage,
 brain damage,
 A greater uptake of aluminum into the brain
and
 beta amyloid deposits which are
characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease.

Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)




Compared children in two villages ( <0.7 ppm
versus 2.5 - 4.5 ppm F in water)
Controlled for lead exposure and iodine intake,
and other key variables (NOTE: both lead
exposure and low iodine also lower IQ).
Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole
age range
The whole IQ curve shifted for both males and
females
Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)
MALES
 Xiang
estimated that the
threshold for lowering IQ was
at 1.9 ppm fluoride in the water

This offers no adequate margin of
safety to protect all American
children from 1) the large range of
doses and 2) large range of
sensitivity expected in a large
population
No protection for range of exposure
A
child drinking TWO liters of
water at 1 ppm would get a higher
DOSE (2 mg/day) than
 one of the Chinese children drinking
ONE liter of water at 1.9 ppm (1.9
mg/day)
To protect for the full range of
sensitivity in a large population
 To
protect the most sensitive person in a
large population
 We normally divide the DOSE that causes
harm by TEN (intra-species variation).
 What dose were the Chinese children getting
at 1.9 ppm? Estimating a RANGE of dose:
 If they drank 0.5 liters/day = 1 mg/day
 If they drank 1.0 liter/day = 1.9 mg/day
 If they drank 2.0 liters/day = 3.8 mg/day
To protect for the full range of
sensitivity in a large population
 Chinese
children
 Range of dose = 1- 4 mg/day
 To
protect all of American children
divide by 10
 Safe
dose would range from
0.1 to 0.4 mg/day. Even if we use the
higher number this dose would be exceeded
by children drinking 0.4 liter (400 ml) of
water at 1 ppm
Supporting documents:
Xiang et al., 2003a*
Xiang et al., 2003b*
11 of the 37 IQ studies found an
association between lowered IQ and
fluoride levels in the urine
Ding et al. 2011* (J. Hazardous
Materials)
“Mean value of fluoride in drinking water was
1.31 ±1.05mg/L (range 0.24–2.84).”
 “ Conclusions
 Overall, our study suggested that low levels of
fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative
effects on children’s intelligence...
 The results also confirmed the dose–response
relationships between urine fluoride
concentrations and IQ scores…”

Xiang finds an association between
lowered IQ and PLASMA fluoride
levels
Xiang et al., 2011*
Xiang et al., 2012
Xiang et al. 2010
Ding et al. 2011
Xiang (2012). Children’s IQ versus Levels of fluoride in the serum (children
from both villages combined, personal communication with Paul Connett) . The
higher the levels of fluoride in the plasma the lower the levels of IQ.
Ugly Fact # 7
Choi et al. (2012)*
The Harvard review of IQ
studies
Harvard meta-analysis of 27 studies
 Choi
et al (the team included Philippe
Grandjean) did a meta-analysis of 27
studies comparing IQ in “high” versus
“low” fluoride villages .
 The study was published in
Environmental Health Perspectives
(published by NIEHS)
 They acknowledge that there were
weaknesses in many of the studies,
however…
 the
results were remarkably
consistent
 In 26 of the 27 studies there was
lower average IQ in the “high”
versus low-fluoride villages.
 Average IQ lowering was about 7
IQ points.
Choi et al. 2012
 The
Harvard scientists concluded
that further investigation of
fluoride’s lowering of IQ should
be a “high research priority”
Promoters claim that the fluoride levels in the
“High Fluoride” villages were so high that they
are not relevant to fluoridation programs?
THIS IS NOT TRUE. In 8 of the studies the “high
fluoride village” had concentrations less than 3 ppm
 In one “high fluoride village” the concentration was
only 0.88 ppm
 And one study (Xiang et al., 2003 a and b) found a
threshold at 1.9 ppm.
 These studies offer no adequate margin of safety
to protect all children drinking uncontrolled
amounts of fluoridated water

Dr. Philippe Grandjean
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury,
and other poisons that cause chemical brain
drain. The effect of each toxicant may seem
small, but the combined damage on a
population scale can be serious, especially
because the brain power of the next
generation is crucial to all of us.” (Harvard
Press Release)
IQ and population
Number of Kids
With a
Specific IQ
IQ
100
IQ and population
Number of Kids
With a
Specific IQ
Mentally
handicapped
IQ
100
Very Bright
IQ and population
Number of Kids
With a
Specific IQ
IQ
95 100
IQ and population
Number of Kids
With a
Specific IQ
Mentally
handicapped
IQ
95 100
Very Bright
Other health concerns
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
First symptoms of fluoride’s poisoning of the bone are
identical to arthritis. No investigation in any fluoridated
country.
Li et al (2001).* Doubling of hip fracture at 1.5 ppm?
Fluoride used to lower thyroid function in hyperthyroid
patients Galletti and Joyet (1958)*
Bachinskii et al (1985) Thyroid function lowered at 2.3
ppm.
Fluoride accumulates in human pineal gland. Lowers
melatonin levels in animals and shortens time to puberty
(Luke 1997, 2001*). No attempt to reproduce these
findings in any fluoridated country.
Supporting documents:
Li et al, 2001*
Luke, 2001*
Galletti and Joyet, 1958*
Summary
1) Most countries don’t fluoridate their water but
there is no difference in tooth decay in 12-yearolds between those that do and those that don’t
(WHO figures)
 2) Fluoridation is a clumsy form of medicine (you
can’t control the dose or who gets it).
 3) It violates the individual’s right to informed
consent to medicine

Summary
4) The evidence that swallowing fluoride actually
reduces tooth decay is very weak. Warren et al
(2009) could find no relationship between the
amount of fluoride swallowed by children and
tooth decay.
 5) Even major promoters of fluoridation (e.g.
CDC) admit that fluoride’s predominant action is
TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC, i.e. it works on the
outside of the tooth not from inside the body

Summary
6) For those who want fluoride fluoridated
toothpaste is readily available.
There is no need to swallow it and there is no
need to force it on people that don’t want it.
 7) American kids are being over-exposed to
fluoride. 41% of American children aged 12-15
have some form of dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010).
 8) It is reckless to assume – without very careful
study – that while fluoride is damaging the
growing tooth cells it is not harming other tissues
in the child’s developing body.

Summary
9) Nature has given us a very good idea about
how much fluoride the baby should get. The level
of fluoride in mothers milk is EXTREMELY
LOW : 0.004 ppm (NRC, 2006, p.40)
 10) It is reckless to give a bottle-fed baby about
200 times the level of fluoride that nature
intended.
 11) The evidence that fluoride can damage the
developing brain is extensive

Summary
9) Nature has given us a very good idea about
how much fluoride the baby should get. The level
of fluoride in mothers milk is EXTREMELY
LOW : 0.004 ppm (NRC, 2006, p.40)
 10) It is reckless to give a bottle-fed baby about
200 times the level of fluoride that nature
intended.
 11) The evidence that fluoride can damage the
developing brain is extensive.

Summary
12) Studies from China indicate that lower IQs
are associated with a) levels of fluoride in water
b) level of fluoride in their urine and c) levels of
fluoride in their plasma
 13) One estimate of the threshold for this effcct
(1.9 ppm) offers no adequate margin of safety to
protect all our children from either the range of
doses or the range of sensitivity expected in a
large population.
 14) A small shift in IQ can have devastating
consequences at the population level.

Summary
15) There is no question that given a sufficient
dose fluoride can harm many human tissues
(brain, bone, teeth, thyroid, kidney etc.) (NRC,
2006).
 16) There is no adequate margin of safety to
protect all our citizens drinking uncontrolled
amounts of fluoridated water and getting fluoride
from many other sources.
 17) It is reckless to expose our population in this
way, when alternatives are readily available.

Summary
18) It is arrogant in the extreme for the dental
lobby (with little training in toxicology) to be
forcing this practice on individuals who do not
want it (especially those of low-income who
cannot afford alternative water supplies).
 19) It is utterly irresponsible that this practice
has gone on for over 65 years a) without approval
of the FDA, b) without a single randomized
clinical trial to demonstrate effectiveness and c)
with so many crucial health questions
unanswered.

Summary
20) It is bad enough when this decision is made
via local referendum but it is even worse when
Connecticut forces this practice on the whole
state.
 I applaud Senator Markley for taking this
initiative and hope he will succeed in lifting this
state mandate and go on to make CT the first
state to outlaw this practice completely.

1. Nov 2012, Queensland
lifted mandatory requirement
2. April 2013, Israel MOH
announces lifting of
mandatory requirement in one
year
Part 3
Science supporting
fluoridation has been
pitiful
The science supporting
fluoridation has been pitiful
Basic science has not been done. There have been
 1) No randomized clinical trials to demonstrate
either effectiveness or safety
 2) No systematic monitoring of fluoride in urine,
blood or bones
 3) No investigation of a possible relationship
between fluoridation and 1) Arthritis; 2) Hypothyroidism; 3) Alzheimer’s disease; 4) lowered IQ;
5) behavioral problems in children; 5) earlier onset
of puberty and 6) bone fractures in children

The science supporting
fluoridation has been pitiful
5) No attempt to reproduce studies of harm found in
countries with high natural levels of fluoride
 6) No attempt to use the severity of dental fluorosis
as a biomarker of exposure to fluoride in children to
investigate many childhood problems.
 7) If you don’t look you don’t find!
 8) But the absence of studies is not the same as
absence of harm!

Dr. Peter Cooney
 Dr.
Peter Cooney, the Chief Dental
Officer of Canada, told an
audience in Dryden, Ontario (April
1, 2008),
 “I walked down your High Street
today, and I didn’t see anyone
growing horns, and you have been
fluoridated for 40 years!”
Supporting documents:
Professor Trevor Sheldon’s letter to
the House of Lords on York
Review*
Also John Doull*
Fluoridation is a “belief” system
Fluoridation has never been a “science-based”
practice (certainly not good science).
 The tactics of promoters reveal this:
a) they use “endorsements” (i.e. authority) in
place of primary science
 and
b) they attack the credibility of opponents with
many personal attacks.
 Such tactics would not be necessary if the
primary science was on their side.

Endorsements
1) The first critical endorsement came in 1950
from the US Public Health Service. This was
made before any trial had been completed and
before any significant health studies had been
published.
 2) Other endorsements quickly followed, ADA,
APHA, etc.
 3) These endorsements are very effective with the
general public and busy legislators, but are less
impressive to independent researchers.

Some examples of unprofessional tactics,
poor science and biased reviews
1) ADA White paper (1979)
 2) CDC (1999)
 3) Queensland Health (2007) promotion
 4) WHO (2004) used biased panel
 5) Health Canada (2007) expert panel biased
 6) NHMRC (Australia) 2007 review very poor

ADA White Paper (1979)
“Individual dentists must be convinced that
they need not be familiar with scientific
reports and field investigations on
fluoridation to be effective participants
and that non- participation is overt
neglect of professional responsibility.”
CDC (1999)*
In October 1999, the CDC claimed that
fluoridation was “one of the great public
health achievements of the 20th century.”
But this statement (and all statements on
fluoridation from the CDC) comes from
the Oral Health Division – consisting of
about 30 – largely dentally trained
personnel – whose mission is to promote
fluoridation.
CDC (1999)*
This claim was based on a report written by two
people. One a dentist who had not published
anything on fluoridation before and the other
an economist.
This report was not externally peer-reviewed.
It was six years out of date on the health studies
cited for safety (see marked passage*).
The evidence cited to demonstrate effectiveness
was trivial and embarrassing (see Figure 1).
CDC MMWR, October 22, 1999
SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)
Queensland Health’s
promotion of “mandatory”
statewide fluoridation)
(2007)
Queenslanders were told
Fluoridated Townsville has
65% less tooth decay than
Non-Fluoridated Brisbane
Qld Health “results - 65 % less tooth decay”

“ In Townsville, water
supplies have been
fluoridated since 1964,
resulting in 65% less
tooth decay in children
than those in Brisbane”

“ fluoride, which is
proven to be safe and
effective ”
Qld Health newspaper ads Dec 2007
How did they get the 65% less decay ?
0.26 – 0.09 = 0.17 DMFS
0.17/0.26 x 100 = 65%
fewer tooth surfaces decayed
An absolute saving of 0.17 of
one tooth surface in 7 year
olds!
This was an atrocious
example of “cherry picking”
the data
“ Teeth exposed to
fluoridated water”
Qld Health 2007
“ Teeth exposed to
fluoridated water”
Qld Health 2007
“ Teeth without exposure
to fluoridated water”
Qld Health 2007
“ Teeth exposed to
fluoridated water”
Qld Health 2007
“ Teeth without exposure
to fluoridated water”
Qld Health 2007
Does this look like a difference in
0.17 of one tooth surface?
“ Teeth exposed to
fluoridated water”
Qld Health 2007
“ Teeth without exposure
to fluoridated water”
Qld Health 2007
Does this look like a difference in
0.17 of one tooth surface?
Or is this fraudulent promotion?
WHO (2004)
Fluoride
M A Lennon, H Whelton, D O'Mullane,
J Ekstrand.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutfluori
de.pdf
MA Lennon, is chairman of the British Fluoridation
Society
H. Whelton and D. O’Mullane are both dental researchers
from the University of Cork and are both profluoridation (Ireland has mandatory fluoridation)
Health Canada’s expert panel (2007)
In 2007 Health Canada selected a panel of
six experts to review the literature of
fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness
Of the 6 panelists chosen FOUR were
dentists well-known for their promotion
of fluoridation.
The review was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The NHMRC (Australia) 2007 review
The panel dismissed the relevance of the
massive NRC (2006) review (500 pages,
1100 references) in one sentence.

“The NAS report refers to the adverse health
effects from fluoride at 2-4 mg/L, the reader is
alerted to the fact that fluoridation of
Australia’s drinking water occurs in the range
of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.” (p.16)
Part 4
Better Alternatives
Better Alternatives
If you want fluoride use fluoridated
toothpaste (96% toothpaste sold in US is
fluoridated)
Better still use XYLITOL toothpaste. Xylitol
toothpaste has been used for over 30 years
in Finland
Give Xylitol mints (not chewing gum) to kids
in school (e.g. Wichita, Kansas).
Give free toothbrushes and free toothpaste to
low-income families (e.g. Scotland)
Better Alternatives
 Most
of tooth decay is concentrated in lowincome families
 Most distressing tooth decay is baby bottle
tooth decay
 Low-income families need better diet and
better dental education
 LESS SUGAR! MORE BRUSHING!
 Less sugar means less tooth decay and less
OBESITY…less diabetes, fewer heart
attacks (education = a good investment!)
Modern studies show that
tooth decay does NOT go up
when fluoridation stopped
Recent studies indicate that Dental Caries has
not gone up after Fluoridation Stopped
1. Former East Germany Kunzel, W. & Fischer, T. (1997). Rise and fall of
caries prevalence in German towns with different F concentrations in drinking
water.
Caries Res 31(3): 166-73
2. Cuba Kunzel, W. & Fischer, T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of
water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Res 34(1): 20-5.
3. Canada Maupome, G. et. al (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the
cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 29(1): 3747.
4. Finland Seppa, L. et. al (2000). Caries trends 1992-98 in two low-fluoride
Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoride. Caries Res 34(6): 462-8.
EXTRA SLIDES
More on IQ studies
RESOURCES
If you have several
weeks to spend
National Research Council (2006)
If you have several
days to spend
Book published
by Chelsea Green
October, 2010
Can be ordered
on Amazon.com
Contains
80 pages
of references
to the
Scientific
literature
If you have only
half an hour to spend
Please watch the
29 minute DVD
“Professional Perspectives
on Fluoridation”
Can be viewed ONLINE at
www.FluorideALERT.org
If you have only
20 minutes to spend
Please watch the
20 minute DVD
“TEN FACTS on FLUORIDE”
PLUS BOOKLET
at
www.FluorideALERT.org
Fluoridation violates
the Precautionary Principle
 If
PP doesn’t apply to fluoridation
then you might as well get rid of it!
 See Chapter 21 in The Case Against
Fluoride
Precautionary Principle: Criteria for
application.
1. Is there published evidence of harm?
YES – 36 IQ studies
2. Is this effect serious?
YES
3. Is the benefit being pursued very
significant?
NO. A fraction of one permanent tooth
surface saved ?
4. Are there alternative cost-effective solutions
available?