Studies

• Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity (Choi et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012): a recent Harvard meta-analysis of 27 studies to investigate the effects of increased fluoride exposure and delayed neurobehavioral development.

• Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population (Danielson, C. et al. JAMA. 1992 Aug 12; 268(6):746-8.): the objective was to test the effect of water fluoridated to 1 ppm on the incidence of hip fractures in the elderly and concluded: “We found a small but significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm, suggesting that low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.”

• Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: a cohort analysis in Finland (Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Oct 15;150(8):817-24). The summary states, “The scientific evidence clearly shows that fluoride damages bone even at levels added to public drinking water,” says Dr. John R. Lee, physician and authority on fluoride and its bone effects.

• New Evidence on Fluoridation (Aust N Z J Public Health 1997; 21: 187-90)

“Fluoride damages bones – Since 1990, five major epidemiological studies from three countries – United States, the United Kingdom and France – showing a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated regions…”

• Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity (Chachra et al, J Dent Res 89(11):1219-1223, 2010). Bone density increases with fluoride exposure, but this denser bone is not as strong as, and differs in structure from, normal bone.

• Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from lead-exposed rats (Sawan et al, Toxicology 271 (2010) 21–26).

“In conclusion, this study showed that co-exposure to fluoride increases lead concentrations in the blood and in calcified tissues in animals exposed to lead from the beginning of gestation. These findings suggest that a biological effect not recognized so far may underlie the epidemiological association between increased BPb levels in children and water fluoridation.”

• The Health Effects Database, published by the Fluoride Action Network includes detailed summaries and exhaustive references for over 80 aspects of fluoride toxicity. It’s a gold mine of information for anyone interested in the science.

Reports

• Artificial Water Fluoridation – Off to a poor start / fluoride injures the newborn (January 1, 2015)

Sheldon Thomas, author of this report, is the founder of Clear Water Legacy (www.clearwaterlegacy.com) and a former Manager of Water Distribution for the City of Hamilton, Ontario.

“Where is the carved-in-stone proof that fluoride exposure will not scar a child even before the drawing of first breath?” This well-referenced document answers that question with a resounding, “Nowhere!”

• FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards (National Research Council (NRC) 2006) This extensive report identifies three main negative health effects – stage II skeletal fluorosis, bone fractures, and severe dental fluorosis – but also raises concerns about other potential health hazards particularly to the endocrine system and developing brain.

• Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation Declan Waugh uses the findings of the NRC’s report (immediately above) to make a revealing comparison of the health between Republic of Ireland (fluoridated) and Northern Ireland (unfluoridated) and Europe (97% unfluoridated). The results are startling.

• York Review (2000) – A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation The York Review was a review of existing research done by the University of York in England and paid for by the Department of Health. Its goal was to determine the effects of water fluoridation on the population by. This 110 page report is being touted by proponents as giving fluoridation a clean bill of health.

Highlights:

• Reviewed 3,231 studies – rejected 93% or 3,017studies – used 214 studies.
• Of these studies selected, the vast majority were graded as Level C “poor quality with a risk of bias.” None reached the highest quality (Level A).
• Excludes ALL animal and toxicological studies.
• Ignored the question of Total Fluoride Intake from all sources.
• At a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm, the prevalence of fluorosis was estimated to be 48%

Conclusions

quoting – “The scope of this review is not broad enough to answer independently the question ‘should fluoridation be undertaken on a broad scale in the UK’? Important considerations outside the bounds of this review include the cost-effectiveness of a fluoridation program, total fluoride exposure from environmental and non-environmental sources other than water, environmental and ecological effects of artificial fluoridation and the ethical and legal debates.”

• Fluoridation and Cancer – Does water fluoridation have negative side effects? A critique of the York Review (immediately above) by Peter Meiers, Saarbruecken, Germany (Oct. 2000)

In summary, the York review fits well in a history of attempts to downgrade possible risks associated with exposure to fluoride. Selection of data, inconsistent use of exclusion criteria, disregard of experimental studies which could have offered a clue to proper evaluation of epidemiological investigations render the York review useless. Either the York team was not really interested (to say the least), aimed at supporting proponent’s ́views, or was hopelessly lost in its task.

Articles

• Rethinking the risks and benefits of fluoridation (January/February 2013)

Sheldon Thomas, author of this report, is the founder of Clear Water Legacy (www.clearwaterlegacy.com) and a former Manager of Water Distribution for the City of Hamilton, Ontario.

This well-referenced document exposes the astounding lack of scientific evidence that would prove fluoridation chemicals are safe.