Home > fluoride > The Case Against Fluoride

The Case Against Fluoride

Tonight on Coast to Coast AM Ian Punnet interviewed Dr. Paul Connett, an anti-fluoride activist who is also a Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University. Paul Connett wrote a book called The Case Against Fluoride. The Coast to Coast AM website says about this show:

Truth About Fluoride
Sat 07-23

Paul Connett, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network, joins Ian to discuss the truth about fluoride and how this toxic chemical has no real health benefits whatsoever.

The bio of Paul on Coast says,

Dr. Paul Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. Paul is the Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network and has researched fluoride’s toxicity for nearly 11 years. He has given invited presentations to the Fluoridation Forum in Ireland, the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research and the American College of Toxicology.

Another biography of Paul comes from St. Lawrence University, with a picture of him, and says about him,

Professor of Chemistry Paul Connett’s environmental activism goes beyond his classes.

Investigations into the scientific evidence against the practice of water fluoridation has become a family affair for the Connett household. His son Michael ’99 is the research director and Webmaster for the Fluoride Action Network (http://www.fluoridealert.org), and his wife, Ellen, is also involved in researching the topic. All three presented scientific papers at the 26th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, held in Wiesbaden, Germany, recently.

Paul Connett has received numerous awards and citations for his work, and frequently participates in community discussions on fluoridation. A graduate of Cambridge University, Connett holds a Ph.D. from Dartmouth College and joined the faculty at St. Lawrence in 1983. Connett’s opposition to incineration as a method of managing solid waste, based on his chemical analysis of the byproducts of the process, has taken him to 49 states, five Canadian provinces and 44 other countries. He has given over 1,700 public presentations, written many articles on dioxin and waste management and co-produced several videotapes on those topics, as a result of that research.

In addition to his passionate interest in environmental chemistry, Connett is also a classical music aficionado, often playing favorite pieces for students in his classes, and hosting a music program on North Country Public Radio.

Connett says that he has devoted a great deal of time and effort to grass-roots environmental organizations during his career, because “that is the place where we can effect genuine change.”

Strangely, Paul is not listed in St. Lawrence’s staff roster nor does he turn up in their search engine, yet his bio is there and it says he’s part of their faculty. I also imagine St. L. U has more faculty then just the few it lists in the roster, so why does it only show a few people?

I’m listening to Paul right now on Coast, and he’s spoken very well against fluoride being forced on the poor and everyone in general by putting it in public water supplies. I didn’t hear him slip up once or show any hint of nervousness. He pointed out interesting things like that fluoride, though not an approved medication by the FDA, is and known to them to be a poison, which they make known on fluoridated toothpaste boxes and tubes, is allowed by them to be put in anything, so long as it is bought, because when you buy a hazardous material, it’s no longer classified as one. Ian Punnet, the host thist night/morning, also pointed out more hypocrisy of the FDA by pointing out that they will go out of their way to ban apparently good drugs, like ibogaine, which negates drug addiction, and yet doesn’t do this with fluoride. My thoughts are also on the EPA: why don’t they point out that fluoride is a major environmental hazard? May God bless him for not giving in to the Mainstream Science Cult‘s peer pressure and strong arm tactics.

Update 7/24/2011 4:06 PM:
I wanted to make sure that I didn’t have a statement based on a assumption when I made that comment about the EPA not speaking out against forced pb water fluoridation, and just found something, not to my suprise, that was just the opposite, and it was not so long ago, the first of this year was a news article that says:

EPA and HHS Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride / Agencies working together to maintain benefits of preventing tooth decay while preventing excessive exposure (and I just looked at the url again and see it’s from the EPA itself!)

News Releases – Water

EPA and HHS Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride / Agencies working together to maintain benefits of preventing tooth decay while preventing excessive exposure

Release date: 01/07/2011

Contact Information: HHS Office of the Assistant, Secretary for Health (OASH)–, Public Affairs, ashmedia@hhs.gov, 202-205-0143, EPA, Jalil Isa (Media Inquiries Only), isa.jalil@epa.gov, 202-564-3226, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today are announcing important steps to ensure that standards and guidelines on fluoride in drinking water continue to provide the maximum protection to the American people to support good dental health, especially in children. HHS is proposing that the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water can be set at the lowest end of the current optimal range to prevent tooth decay, and EPA is initiating review of the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water.

These actions will maximize the health benefits of water fluoridation, an important tool in the prevention of tooth decay while reducing the possibility of children receiving too much fluoride. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named the fluoridation of drinking water one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

“One of water fluoridation’s biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community—at home, work, school, or play,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH. “Today’s announcement is part of our ongoing support of appropriate fluoridation for community water systems, and its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay throughout one’s lifetime.”

“Today both HHS and EPA are making announcements on fluoride based on the most up to date scientific data,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water Peter Silva. “EPA’s new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride.”

HHS and EPA reached an understanding of the latest science on fluoride and its effect on tooth decay prevention, and the development of dental fluorosis that may occur with excess fluoride consumption during the tooth forming years, age 8 and younger. Dental fluorosis in the United States appears mostly in the very mild or mild form – as barely visible lacy white markings or spots on the enamel. The severe form of dental fluorosis, with staining and pitting of the tooth surface, is rare in the United States.

There are several reasons for the changes seen over time, including that Americans have access to more sources of fluoride than they did when water fluoridation was first introduced in the United States in the 1940s. Water is now one of several sources of fluoride. Other common sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, and fluoride applied by dental professionals. Water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste are largely responsible for the significant decline in tooth decay in the U.S. over the past several decades.

HHS’ proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects. These scientific assessments will also guide EPA in making a determination of whether to lower the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which is set to prevent adverse health effects.

The new EPA assessments of fluoride were undertaken in response to findings of the National Academies of Science (NAS). At EPA’s request, NAS reviewed new data on fluoride in 2006 and issued a report recommending that EPA update its health and exposure assessments to take into account bone and dental effects and to consider all sources of fluoride. In addition to EPA’s new assessments and the NAS report, HHS also considered current levels of tooth decay and dental fluorosis and fluid consumption across the United States.

Comments regarding the EPA documents, Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis For Non-cancer Effects and Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis should be sent to EPA at FluorideScience@epa.gov. The documents can be found at http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/fluoride_index.cfm

The notice of the proposed recommendation will be published in the Federal Register soon and HHS will accept comments from the public and stakeholders on the proposed recommendation for 30 days at CWFcomments@cdc.gov. HHS is expecting to publish final guidance for community water fluoridation by spring 2011. You may view a prepublication version of the proposed recommendation at: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html.

More information about the national drinking water regulations for fluoride:

Q&A’s on latest EPA actions on fluoride:

More information on EPA’s fluoride assessment and to comment:

More information about community water fluoridation, information on tooth decay prevention and dental fluorosis: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridationsource

Related Information:

Professor Paul Connett: Your Toxic Tap Water

Poisoned Horses

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride [on kids]

History of fluorine

Fluoride Health Effects Database

Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb

Fluoride: Protected Pollutant or Panacea

The Fluoride Education Project

NRC finds fluoride exposure associated with thyroid dysfunction

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water

Research on Dangers of Flouride in Tap Water from Suite101

Dangers of Fluoride, by Cathy of Somerset, a dental hygiene student in NH

New Zealand Fluoride Action Network

47% of Bellingham, Washington USA’s citizens voted against water fluoridation

The Fluoride Debate

Fluoride’s Toxic Effects according to Emedicine.com

A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride

More Links


The Dangers Of Fluoride

Fluoride Fatigue

The Dangers of Fluoride & Water Fluoridation

  1. July 24, 2011 at 7:01 AM

    First let me thank Ian for his excellent hosting of my interview last night. To bring the record up to date I taught chemistry at St. Lawrence University from 1983 to 2006. I retired in May 2006.

    For those who may have missed the interview may I recommend the 28 minute videotape “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation” which can be viewed online at http://www.FluorideAlert.org.

    Below, also see the top ten arguments against water fluoridation.

    Paul Connett

    Top Ten Arguments Against Water Fluoridation

    1) Fluoridation is a violation of the individual’s right to informed consent to medication.

    2) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No biological process in animals or humans has been shown to depend on it. On the contrary, it is known that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes and vital cellular constituents, such as enzymes and G-proteins. This makes fluoride potentially toxic even at low doses.

    3) Children in fluoridated countries are greatly over-exposed to fluoride. When fluoridation began in 1940s, 10% of children were expected to develop dental fluorosis (damage to the enamel involving discoloration and/or mottling) in its very mild form. Today, the prevalence in fluoridated countries is much higher—41% of all American children aged 12-15 are now impacted with some form of dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010), with over 10% in categories (mild, moderate and severe) that may need expensive treatment.

    4) The chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies are largely hazardous by-products of the fertilizer industry. These chemicals cannot be disposed of into the sea by international law, and have never been required to undergo randomized clinical trials for safety or effectiveness by any regulatory agency in the world. The U.S. FDA classifies fluoride as an “unapproved drug.”

    5) There is mounting evidence that swallowing fluoride causes harm. Fluoride has been found to damage soft tissues (brain, kidneys, and endocrine system), as well as teeth (dental fluorosis) and bones (skeletal fluorosis). There are now 24 studies that show a relationship between fairly modest exposure to naturally-occurring fluoride and reduced IQ in children. Two of these studies suggest that the threshold for damage may be reached at fluoride levels similar to those used in water fluoridation (http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html ).

    6) Swallowing fluoride provides little or no benefit to the teeth. Even promoters of fluoridation agree that fluoride works topically (on the outer surface of the teeth), and not via some internal biological mechanism (CDC, 1999). A recent U.S. study found no relationship between the amount of fluoride a child ingested and level of tooth decay (Warren et al., 2009). Topical treatment in the form of fluoridated toothpaste is universally available, so it is a mistake to swallow fluoride and expose all the tissues of the body to its harmful effects.

    7) Human breast milk is very low in fluoride. Breast milk averages only 0.007 ppm F (NRC, 2006). Even in areas with high fluoride levels, nursing children receive only a small fraction of the mother’s fluoride intake, ensuring that the sensitive brains and bodies of breast-fed infants are protected from the developmental effects of this toxin. In contrast, a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated area (0.7-1.2 ppm F) gets up to 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby, resulting in an increased risk of dental fluorosis and other adverse effects.

    8) There is no control of dose and no follow-up. Once fluoride is added to water, there is no way to control who gets the drug or how much is ingested. Nor has there been any systematic medical follow-up that would allow a picture of short-term or long-term side effects of the drug to be built up. These failings fly in the face of accepted medical practice.

    9) Certain subgroups are particularly affected by fluoridation. People vary considerably in their sensitivity to any toxic substance, including fluoride. Infants, the elderly, diabetics, those with poor nutrition (e.g. low calcium and low iodine), and those with kidney disease are especially vulnerable to specific adverse effects of fluoride. Black and Mexican-Americans have a higher prevalence of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis (see Table 23, CDC, 2005).

    10) Fluoridation discriminates against those with low incomes. People on low incomes are least able to afford avoidance measures (reverse osmosis or bottled water), or treatment of dental fluorosis (see Point 3) and other fluoride-related ailments (see Point 5).

    For more information see the webpage of the Fluoride Action Network HYPERLINK “http://www.FluorideAlert.org/”www.FluorideAlert.org; the videotape, “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation” and The Case Against Fluoride by Connett, Beck and Micklem (Chelsea Green, 2010).

  1. August 30, 2011 at 2:35 AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: