US Government Admits Americans Have
Been Overdosed on Fluoride
May 12, 2015
Story at-a-glance
−
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has
lowered the recommended level of fluoride in water from
0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of water to 0.7
mg/L, to prevent signs of fluoride overexposure
About 40 percent of American teens have dental
fluorosis, a condition referring to changes in the
appearance of tooth enamel caused by long-term ingestion
of fluoride during the time teeth are forming
Water fluoridation is inherently unethical. Fluoride is
a drug that is added to water for medical purposes (to
prevent cavities), but you cannot control the dose
people are getting when administering it this way
By Dr. Mercola
The US government has finally admitted they've overdosed
Americans on fluoride and, for first time since 1962, are lowering
its recommended level of
fluoride in drinking water.1,2,3
About 40 percent of American teens have dental fluorosis,4
a condition referring to changes in the appearance of tooth
enamel—from chalky-looking lines and splotches to dark staining and
pitting—caused by long-term ingestion of fluoride during the time
teeth are forming.
In some areas, fluorosis rates are as high as 70-80 percent, with
some children suffering from advanced forms.
The former recommendation called for a fluoride level of 0.7 to
1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of water. The new upper limit set by
the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is 0.7 mg/L, to
prevent these visible signs of toxic overexposure.
Why Is a Drug Added to Water When the Dose Cannot Be Controlled?
It's quite clear that when you add fluoride to drinking water,
you cannot control the dose that people are getting, and fluoride is
in fact not only a non-essential mineral but a toxic drug. This
alone is one of the reasons why fluoride shouldn't be added to
drinking water at any level.
If a doctor somehow managed to force a patient to take a drug
with known toxic effects and failed to inform them of the dosage and
frequency, and never monitored their health outcome, they would be
medically negligent and liable to legal and medical board action.
Yet water utilities administer this drug without a prescription,
at the behest of the government, without any idea of who will get
what dose and for how long, and without monitoring for side effects.
Fluoride is added to drinking water to, in theory, prevent a
disease (tooth decay), and as such becomes a medicine by FDA
definition. While proponents claim this is no different than adding
vitamin D to milk,
fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Moreover, fluoride
isn't even approved by the FDA for the prevention of cavities.
We now know that at a limit of 0.7-1.2 mg/L causes a great many
people to overdose on the drug. Will an upper limit of 0.7 mg/L
protect everyone forced to drink fluoridated water?
Considering the fact that people also get fluoride from
toothpaste, dental rinses, processed foods, and beverages, the
chances of overexposure are still present, even at this lowered
level.
Many Will Still Be at Risk for Overexposure at Lowered Fluoride
Level
At the previous level, 40 percent of US teens became "collateral
damage." What will the allowable damage be at the new level? The HHS
said it will evaluate dental fluorosis rates among children in 10
years to assess whether they were correct about this new level.
Let's say dental fluorosis goes down to 20 percent. Is 20 percent
an acceptable level of harm? How about 10 percent? Who decides what
the acceptable level of collateral damage is?
Remarkably, the Sacramento Bee5
reports that: "Recent unpublished federal research found there's
no regional differences in the amount of water kids drink. So it
makes sense for the same levels to be used everywhere, health
officials said."
I'd be very curious to review that study, because I have a hard
time imagining that kids everywhere drink the same amount of water!
It's also a ludicrous assumption unless every single child is
also exposed to the same amount of fluoride from other sources
besides drinking water... and weighs the same... and has the same
health status... and we know that's simply not the
case.
According to the HHS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
"uses the 90th percentile of drinking water intake for all age
groups to calculate the relative contribution for each fluoride
source."
What this means is that if you drink more water than the 90th
percentile, you are not protected by this reduced level. People most
likely to fall into that category include infants receiving formula
mixed with fluoridated water, people working outdoors (especially in
hot climates), athletes, and diabetics.
Dental Fluorosis Is NOT the Only Risk of Water Fluoridation
Barbara Gooch, a dentist at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) told NPR6
that "The only documented risk of water fluoridation is
fluorosis, and it is primarily a cosmetic risk. Fluorosis in the
milder form is not a health risk."
This hints at a really deficient understanding of the available
science on fluoride's health effects. Dental fluorosis is the most
visible form of fluorosis, but it's far from being "just
cosmetic" and of no further concern.
It can also be an indication that the rest of your body, such as
your bones and internal organs, including your brain, has been
overexposed to fluoride as well.
In other words, if fluoride is having a visually detrimental
effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed
that it's also damaging other parts of your body, such as your
bones. Skeletal fluorosis, which isn't visible, is very difficult to
distinguish from arthritis. Symptoms indicative of early clinical
stage skeletal fluorosis include:
Burning, prickling, and tingling in your limbs
Muscle weakness
Chronic fatigue
Gastrointestinal disorders
Reduced appetite and weight loss
The second clinical stage of skeletal fluorosis is characterized
by:
Stiff joints and/or constant pain in your bones; brittle
bones; and osteosclerosis
Anemia
Calcification of tendons, or ligaments of ribs and pelvis
Osteoporosis in the long bones
Bony spurs may also appear on your limb bones, especially
around your knee, elbow, and on the surface of tibia and ulna
All of this has been known since the 1930s, so it's rather
disingenuous to proclaim that dental fluorosis is the only
documented risk of
water fluoridation. If 40 percent of American teens have dental
fluorosis, how many people suffer from skeletal fluorosis as a
result of chronic fluoride overexposure? In one previous study, bone
fracture rates also rose sharply with increasing severity of
dental fluorosis. Studies have also demonstrated that fluoride
toxicity, caused by overexposure, can lead to:
Inactivation of 62 enzymes and inhibition of more than
100
Inhibited formation of antibodies, and immune system
disruptions
Fluoride Has No Benefit for Teeth When Swallowed
You are beyond naïve if you believe that fluoride somehow
selectively goes to your teeth when you swallow it. Rather, it
accumulates throughout your body's bones and tissues. What little
benefit fluoride may have is achieved through topical
application. Both the CDC and the World Health
Organization (WHO) have noted that there is no discernible
difference in tooth decay between developed countries that
fluoridate their water and those that do not.7
The decline in tooth decay the US has experienced over the last
60 years, which is often attributed to
fluoridated water, has likewise occurred in all developed
countries, most of which do not fluoridate their water. So
declining rates of dental decay is not in and of itself proof that
water fluoridation actually works. It's also worth noting that well
over 99 percent of the fluoride added to drinking water never even
touches a tooth; it simply runs down the drain, into the
environment, where you can be guaranteed it's doing nothing that is
beneficial...
Source: KK Cheng et al.
BMJ 2007.8
Rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in
countries with and without fluoridation.
HHS Still Ignores Major Safety Concerns
According to Fluoride Action Network9
(FAN), in finalizing its new fluoride recommendation, the HHS has
whitewashed a number of safety issues, failing to address recent
research showing adverse effects ranging from lowered IQ in children
(found in no less than 43 studies),
underactive thyroid,10
and ADHD.11
For example, one recent study12
linking fluoridated water to higher prevalence of ADHD created a
predictive model showing that every one percent increase in the
portion of the US population drinking fluoridated water in 1992 was
associated with 67,000 additional cases of ADHD 11 years later, and
an additional 131,000 cases 19 years later.
FAN points out that the HHS even "resorted to deceit" when it
dismissed research showing reductions in IQ. The HHS stated that
"A recent meta-analysis of studies conducted in rural China...
identified an association between high fluoride exposure (i.e.,
drinking water concentrations ranging up to 11.5 mg/L)
and lower IQ scores..." First of all, there are in all 43
studies reporting a relationship between fluoride exposure and
reduced IQ. The study mentioned by the HHS only looked at 27 of
them.
But more importantly, when you seek to protect an entire
population you have to look at the lowest level at which
harm becomes apparent, not the highest. By noting only the
upper level of the fluoride concentrations found in this study, it
appears the HHS was trying to offer misleading reassurance that
their recommended level is well beneath any level where risk may be
present. But the lowest level at which IQ reductions were noted in
that study was 0.88 mg/L, which isn't that far from
the new recommended upper limit of 0.7 mg/L.
Add fluoride from other sources, and you may very well get into
the range of hazard. Interestingly, a number of studies13,14,15,16
have specifically shown that children who have moderate or severe
dental fluorosis score lower on tests measuring cognitive skills and
IQ, suggesting that if 40 percent of our kids have fluorosis, the
water fluoridation scheme in the US is likely affecting our
children's IQ as well. As noted by FAN:
"In addition, in toxicology, it is not the concentration
of fluoride (mg/liter) that is the relevant parameter but the
dose in mg/day (how much you drink), and such a dose has to be
compiled from all sources. In the case of the Chinese children
in rural villages in these studies, they did not have two
sources that US children commonly have: typically they are not
bottle-fed and they do not use fluoridated toothpaste.
So, it is likely that some American children are getting
higher doses than some of the Chinese children who had their IQ
lowered... Because fluoride is an endocrine disruptor and has
the potential to lower IQ in children, FAN urges HHS to adopt
the Precautionary Principle and end fluoridation now."
They Got It Wrong—HHS Does Not Consider the Fact That Fluoride Is an
Endocrine Disruptor...
According to FAN:
"HHS also stated in its press release that a report on
the toxicology of fluoride by the National Research Council of
the National Academies (NRC, 200617)
'found no evidence substantial enough to support effects other
than severe dental fluorosis at these levels.'
What HHS failed to state is that the NRC report of 2006
stated18
for the first time that fluoride is an 'endocrine
disruptor,' which means it has the potential to play
havoc with the biology and fate of humans and animals. This is
far more significant than severe dental fluorosis."
In 2011, FAN submitted a number of concerns to the HHS, and none
of them have been adequately addressed, FAN says. These concerns
include:
Mass medicating the population via the water supply is
unethical
The benefit and safety of ingested fluoride has never
been proved by accepted medical standards
Any benefits of fluoride are primarily topical, not
systemic
Americans will still be over-exposed to fluoride at 0.7
ppm
Infants will not be protected. Babies who receive
formula made with fluoridated water will still receive 175
times more fluoride than breast-fed infants
African-American children and low-income children will
not be protected
Fluoride as an endocrine disruptor, which the HHS still
has not taken into consideration
HHS has not considered or investigated rates of skeletal
fluorosis in the US
To Protect Your Health, Avoid Fluoride
No matter which scientific studies you examine or which
population trends you view, the rational conclusion is that
fluoride's health dangers far outweigh the marginal dental benefits
it might offer. Dental caries can be effectively prevented
with means other than fluoridation, thereby
avoiding the adverse effects of fluoride.
It's important to realize that fluoride is a cumulative toxin,
which over time can lead to serious health concerns, from
hypothyroidism to skeletal fluorosis and much more. The neurological
effects are particularly disconcerting. Even scientists from the
EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence
of developmental neurotoxicity."
Water fluoridation needs to stop. The question is how.
Despite all the evidence, getting fluoride out of American water
supplies has been exceedingly difficult. After all, the US
government has promoted it for over half a century. Were it to admit
that they were wrong all along, and have in fact been poisoning
everyone all this time, the ramifications could be enormous. It's
not impossible to abolish water fluoridation, however, as evidenced
in areas that have successfully done it.
According to the late Jeff Green, national director of Citizens
for Safe Drinking Water, a repeated theme in the cases where
communities successfully removed fluoride from their water supply is
the shifting of the burden of proof.
Rather than citizens taking on the burden of proving that
fluoride is harmful and shouldn't be added, a more successful
strategy has been to hold those making claims, and the elected
officials who rely on them, accountable for delivering proof that
the specific fluoridation chemical being used fulfills their health
and safety claims, and is in compliance with all regulations, laws,
and risk assessments already required for safe drinking
water. To learn more, please see this previous
article, which discusses these strategies more in-depth.
The Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to end water
fluoridation not only in the US, but worldwide, but they need your
support to succeed. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal
health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives
really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, protect your
drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a
tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.
Recent Victories in the Fight Against Water Fluoridation
There have been a number of recent victories in the fight against
water fluoridation that are worth celebrating, including the
following:
Clarksburg, West Virginia19—Water
Board members voted 2-1 in April to end fluoridation due to the
growing number of studies showing negative side effects. The
decision by the Clarksburg board end fluoridation for over
25,000 citizens, including residents of Bridgeport and a number
of other smaller communities20.
Oneida, New York21—On
May 5th the Common Council voted 5-1 to reject fluoridation for
the third time since 2002. For months, the council has held
public hearings and debates on fluoridation, listening to an
array of experts on both sides of the issue, including FAN’s Dr.
Paul Connett and NY Dept. of Health’s Dental Representative Jay
Kumar, who is a long-time promoter of fluoridation. Despite an
aggressive lobbying campaign by the fluoride-lobby, the council
and community couldn’t be tricked into believing that the
practice was safe, effective, or necessary. The decision will
protect the water for over 21,000 residents.
Kingsville, Ontario22—This
Canadian City Council, representing over 20,000 citizens, passed
a motion in April reaffirming its stance in opposition to
fluoridation. The issue was raised by the former Deputy Mayor,
who urged the council to pass the motion to send a message to
the provincial government, which is considering mandating the
practice. The community of Lakeshore, Ontario23
also recently publicized their opposition to fluoridation, and
will be sending a letter to provincial officials opposing a
mandate.
Carl Junction, Missouri24—Councilors
voted to end fluoridation in April after considering a number of
concerns they had regarding the effectiveness and safety of the
practice. The community, which is home to approximately 8,000
residents, started fluoridating the water supply in 2005 after
voters approved the use of the additive. Carl Junction isn’t
alone in making this decision. According to a recent article,25
“over the past five years, [at least] seven cities and towns in
Missouri have removed fluoride from their municipal water
systems, and a half-dozen more have put the matter to vote.”
Bennington, Vermont26--Despite
aggressive campaigning by a well-organized and well-funded
pro-fluoridation coalition, in March residents of this community
of 16,000 voted 1,539 to 1,117 in opposition to fluoridation in
an advisory referendum vote. This is at least the fifth time
Bennington residents have voted down fluoridation since the
1960s.
Gilford, Pennsylvania27--Gilford
Water Authority officials have decided to end fluoridation after
more than 60 years of practicing it. The authority sent a letter
to water customers stating, “We believe we should not put
anything into the water that is not required by regulation to
maintain the potability and pH balance of your water.”
Sonoma City, California28--In
March, City Councilors voted 3-2 to oppose a proposal by the
County government to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water.
The council will be sending a letter of opposition to the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors.
Help End the Practice of Fluoridation
There's no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested.
Even scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical
having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”
Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental
fluorosis—unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that
indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being
overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy.
Why?
The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water
fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action
Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean
pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial
chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in
our water supplies. So, please, protect your drinking water and
support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible
donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the website of the
Fluoride Action Network
(FAN) and visit the links below:
10 Facts
About Fluoride: Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic
facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion
about whether to fluoridate water. Also see
10 Facts Handout (PDF).
Health Effects Database: FAN's database sets forth the
scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and
effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a
Study Tracker
with the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on
fluoride's effects on human health.
Together, Let's Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve
In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and
efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end
fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!
Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of
fluoridation.
Copyright 1997- 2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.