Scientific Opposition to Fluoride
In addition to the scientists who have lost their jobs and been vilified for speaking out against fluoride, as described in Chapter 19, there are many more who have voiced their concerns. The list given below is far from exhaustive. These men and women were chosen because they are leaders and respected members of their professions, with impeccable credentials in science, dentistry, medicine and law.
Dentists
John Colquhoun, BDS, MPhil, PhD, DipEd. Former principal dental officer, Auckland; Department of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand:
When the socioeconomic variable is allowed for, child dental health appears to be better in the unfluoridated areas.1
David C. Kennedy, DDS. Professor and past president, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology:
During the Fountain Congressional hearings of 1977, the NCI admitted that they had relied upon no scientific data whatsoever when they claimed 25 years earlier that fluoride would be safe to add to the community water supplies.2
Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD. Professor of preventive dentistry, University of Toronto:
Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using [fluoridated] Toronto tap water. Never.3
Don MacAuley (see Chapter 6).
George E. Meinig, DDS. Founding member, American Association of Endodontics:
Opposing this issue was difficult enough without having to buck slandering tactics by colleagues. Even worse, in the eyes of the public, a dentist that didn’t support fluoridation, appeared to favour people having cavities in order to increase personal income. Why, then, did a few prevention-minded dentists and physicians face the wrath and indignation of both the public and professionals? There are substantial scientific reasons.4
Tohru Murakami, DDS, PhD. Vice-president, Japanese Society for Fluoride Research, Japan:
I just shudder to think how many cases of fluoride poisoning have been covered up by false science.5
Philip R.N. Sutton, DDSc, FRACDS. Former senior lecturer in dental science, University of Melbourne:
The fifty-year-old fluoridation hypothesis has not been confirmed. Despite this, millions of people are still medicated with fluoride by government decree, on the assumption that this process has been proved to be entirely safe, and very efficacious in reducing dental caries. In fact, the scientific basis of fluoridation is very unsatisfactory. It is promoted, in the main, by emotion-based ‘endorsements’ rather than by scientifically acceptable evidence.6
Scientists and prominent people in other specialisations
Judge Beatrice J. Brown, Brattleboro, Vermont:
As a judge who has to run for office every two years, and have [sic] since my election in 1948, had to defeat six men lawyers to retain it, I should be by now sufficiently a politician to realize that I may be jeopardizing my office at the next election if I oppose fluoridation, but my conscience does not allow me to remain silent on the issue when I see such ignorance as to the physical effects of fluoride and blind acceptance of it as a measure made in Heaven itself for the benefit of our children.7
Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD (Organic Chemistry and Environmental Fluoride). Professor of Chemistry, University of Kansas:
In view of the extensive evidence contradicting contrary claims based to a considerable degree on flawed research, mandatory addition of industrial waste fluoride (from the phosphate fertilizer industry) to public water supplies clearly requires careful scrutiny and at present can hardly be seen as justified or desirable.2
Dean Burk, PhD (Biochemistry). Former senior chemist and director, Cytochemistry Section, National Cancer Institute:
Everything causes cancer? Perhaps. Conceivably even a single electron at the other side of the universe. The real question is, how likely is any one particular cause? In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.7
Robert J. Carton, PhD (Environmental Sciences and Risk Assessment). Former risk assessment manager for the Office of Toxic Substances, US Environmental Protection Agency:
The fluoride in drinking water standard, or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL), published by EPA in the Federal Register on Nov. 14, 1985, is a classic case of political interference with science. The regulation is a fraudulent statement by the Federal Government that 4 milligrams per litre (mg/l) of fluoride in drinking water is safe with an adequate margin of safety. There is evidence that critical information in the scientific and technical support documents used to develop the standard was falsified by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect a longstanding public health policy.8
Paul Connett, PhD (Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology). Professor of chemistry, St Lawrence University, Canton, New York:
A very powerful lobby has attempted to put the fluoridation debate off-limits. After our extensive reading of the arguments on both sides we believe the debate is off-limits because fluoridation is a house of cards waiting to fall . . . the argument for fluoridating the public’s water supply – the reduction of dental caries for children under the age of twelve (hardly life-threatening) – is hugely outweighed by the many potential health hazards, some of which are extremely serious indeed.9
Mark Diesendorf, BSc, PhD. Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia:
A review of recent scientific literature reveals a consistent pattern of evidence – hip fractures, skeletal fluorosis, the effect of fluoride on bone structure, fluoride levels in bones and osteosarcomas – pointing to the existence of causal mechanisms by which fluoride damages bones.10
C.G. Dobbs. Professor of microbiology, University of North Wales, associate of the Royal College of Science, formerly at King’s College London:
[Fluoridation] is of doubtful legality; it offends deep convictions concerning doctoring without consent; it is against the medical tradition of care for the individual; against the function of a public water supply; against sane economics; against the considered opinion of eminent nutritionists, biochemists, physiologists, pharmacologists, allergists, toxicologists; above all, it is against natural caution and common sense.2
Gregory Erickson, RS, CHO. Director of Public Health, Wilmington, Massachusetts:
This pattern of a higher crude death rate in the cities with fluoridated water supplies was apparent for all categories of death except for those by accidental means and suicide.11
Ben F. Feingold, MD (Physician). Chief emeritus, Department of Allergy, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, San Francisco:
You have my permission to state my position and quote me as against universal fluoridation of the water supply.2
Judge John P. Flaherty, Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary.2
Richard Foulkes, BA, MD (Physician). Former consultant to the Minister of Health, Province of British Columbia, Canada:
A review of literature and documentation suggests that concentrations of fluoride above 0.2 mg/L have lethal effects on and inhibit migration of ‘endangered’ salmon species whose stocks are now in serious decline in the US Northwest and British Columbia. Fluoride added to drinking water, ‘to improve dental health’, enters the fresh water eco-system, in various ways, at levels above 0.2 mg/L. This factor, if considered in ‘critical habitat’ decisions, should lead to the development of a strategy calling for a ban on fluoridation and rapid sunsetting of the practice of disposal of industrial fluoride waste into fresh water.12
Benedict J. Gallo, PhD (Botany). Research microbiologist, US Army Research, Development and Engineering Center, former teaching fellow and research associate, University of Michigan:
The impact of fluoride on human reproduction at the levels received from environmental exposures is a serious concern. A recent epidemiology study shows a correlation between decreasing annual fertility rate in humans and increasing levels of fluoride in drinking water.13
Phillipe Grandjean. Professor of environmental medicine, Odense University, Denmark:
Information which could cast any doubt on the advantage of fluoride supplements was left out by the Task Group. Unless I had been present myself, I would have found it hard to believe.13
Ludwig Gross, MD (Physician). Former chief, Veterans’ Administration Cancer Research, New York:
The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison, harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of the water supply is ‘safe’.2
Charles Gordon Heyd, MD (Physician). Past president, American Medical Association:
I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.14
David R. Hill, PEng. Professor emeritus, Psychology Department, University of Calgary, Canada:
Studies in mainstream peer-reviewed medical journals and government reports now document the fact that serious harms are associated with exposure to small amounts of fluoride – including hip fracture, cancer, and intellectual impairment. There is evidence that both individual and institutional fluoride promoters have stacked the deck, manipulated experimental results, suppressed evidence that spoke against their view, and victimised or smeared those who spoke out against them.15
J. William Hirzy, PhD (Chemistry and Risk Assessment). EPA scientist and senior vice-president, National Federation of Federal Employees:
Historically, fluoridation is mandated by government and rejected by citizens. Communities all over the US are currently fighting for their right to choose. Japan and nearly all of Europe have rejected fluoridation.16
Robert L. Isaacson, PhD (Neurobehavioural Science). Distinguished professor, Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY:
The formation of sound, decay-resistant and caries-free teeth as well as strong, sturdy bones, whether in animal or human populations, does not require fluoride, or at least not in more than minuscule, trace amounts. As acknowledged by sources cited in the report, even when a mother’s fluoride intake is elevated, her milk is extremely low in fluoride, but owing to prenatal accumulation, her baby excretes more fluoride than it ingests from her milk. This fact clearly indicates that any natural physiological need for fluoride, if indeed any exists, must be exceedingly small and certainly far below that being recommended.17
Donald Kennedy. Scientist, Stanford University. Former commissioner, Food and Drug Administration:
Many of the statements in the CR report on fluoridation are directly contradicted by readily available scientific research. Rather than weigh all new evidence as it appears, in a constant and critical reevaluation of the advisability of fluoridation, the promoting agencies – most notably the US public health service and the American Dental Association – have chosen to ignore any research that does not support their claims.18
Harold D. Kletschka, MD, FACS (Cardiovascular surgeon). Past military consultant in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery to the US Air Force surgeon-general and the surgeon of Headquarters Command, Washington, DC; Founder and first chief, USAF Cardiovascular Research Center:
The fact that fluoride is incorporated into the mineral matrix of bones and teeth does not make it an essential nutrient. Other elements hardly considered essential, such as lead and cadmium, also accumulate in bones and teeth, and they are not regarded as beneficial. Obviously, if fluoride is not essential in human nutrition, any consideration of it in terms of an ‘adequate intake’ is clearly not appropriate and should not be part of a ‘dietary reference intakes’ report.17
Lennart Krook, DVM, PhD (Pathology). Emeritus professor of pathology, Cornell University and New York State College of Veterinary Medicine:
The economically most important effect of [fluoride] ingestion is decreased milk production. Milk calcium (Ca) is derived in equal parts from food and bone tissue. Fluoride is toxic to bone resorbing cells and with decreased resorption the cow does not produce Ca deficient milk but less milk in proportion to the F burden. The ideal [fluoride] ingestion is zero. Tolerance levels should be reduced to levels that protect cattle and farmers.19
Richard A. Kunin, MD. President, Society for Orthomolecular Health Medicine, San Francisco, California:
Today, with so many additional sources of fluoride present in processed foods, commercial beverages, and dental care products that were not there when water fluoridation began, the total intake of fluoride, even among children has increased to as much as 2–5 milligrams or more per day, well above the initially proposed optimum of 1 mg/day (from one liter of 1-ppm fluoridated water). With these higher levels of fluoride intake, dental fluorosis and other toxic effects noted above have also increased.17
John R. Lee, MD (Physician), Sebastopol, California:
No study in the past three decades has demonstrated any significant dental benefit from fluoridation. The older historical studies, on which claims of dental benefit are based, are so seriously flawed that most independent researchers conclude they should be ignored. In fact, several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher caries rates, rather than lower ones.17
Peter Mansfield, MA, MB, BChir (Physician). Director, Templegarth Trust, England:
No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion.20
Gene W. Miller, PhD (Biochemistry and Toxicology). Former head of biology, associate dean of science and dean of environmental science, Utah State University:
It was found that among the environmental pollutants, fluoride was most damaging.21
Paul H. Phillips, Department of Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin:
Fluorine is known to be an enzymatic inhibitor which interferes with metabolism of breakdown of glucose, between the 6-carbon and 3-carbon compounds. The metabolism of glucose or its breakdown is our primary source of energy for maintaining life and doing useful work.2
J.J. Rae, PhD (Biochemist). Associate professor of chemistry, University of Toronto:
It is known as a scientific fact that fluoride is a deadly poison to enzymes, upon which all life depends.2
Albert Schatz, PhD (Microbiology). Former professor of science education, Temple University, Philadelphia. Nobel Prize winner for his discovery of streptomycin:
Contrary to what is widely assumed, the toxicity of fluoride is not always related to concentration. Under certain conditions fluoride toxicity actually increases as the concentration decreases. This is what is known as a paradoxical effect.2
Bruce Spittle, MB, ChB, DPM, FRANZCP. Senior lecturer, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand:
There would appear to be some evidence that chronic exposure to fluoride may be associated with cerebral impairment affecting particularly the concentration and memory of some individuals. These symptoms are reminiscent of those seen in the chronic fatigue syndrome.22
Doug D. Styne, MD (Physician). Department of Pharmacology, University of Praetoria, South Africa:
Long-continued ingestion of minute quantities of fluorine causes disease of the thyroid gland.2
James B. Sumner. Director of enzyme chemistry, Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Cornell University. Nobel Prize winner for his work in the field of enzyme chemistry:
We ought to go slowly. Everybody knows that fluorine and fluorides are very poisonous substances and we use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body. That is the reason things are poisoned; because enzymes are poisoned, and that is why animals and plants die.2
A.K. Susheela, PhD. Professor of histocytochemistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Director, Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation:
What is the matter with your scientists that they allow your government to be so stupid? (4 October 1998, commenting on the UK government’s support for fluoridation)23
Alfred Taylor, PhD. Biochemical Institute, University of Texas:
The terrifying conclusion of the studies was that fluorine greatly induced a cancer tumor growth. If doctors and the public can be made aware of this catastrophe, fluoridation shall end quickly. It will someday be recognized as the most lethal and stupid ‘Health Program’ ever conceived by the mind of man, witch doctors and blood-letters not excepted . . . the growing weight of scientific evidence that water-borne fluorides, even at 1 ppm, have toxic possibilities must finally be recognized.2
Hugo Theorell, MD (Physician). Nobel Prize winner for his research in the field of enzyme chemistry:
The fluoride ion exerts its toxic effect by inhibiting the action of many enzyme systems.2
Harold Warner. Professor emeritus of research, chief of Biomedical Engineering Division, Emory University Medical School.14
John Yiamouyiannis, PhD (Biochemistry). Recognised as the world’s leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride:
In the United States fluoridation accounts for more than 30,000 deaths a year, of which 10,000 are due to cancer, and it accounts for chronic effects in the majority of the Unites States population.7
Rudolph Ziegelbecker, PhD (Physician). Institute of Environmental Health, Graz, Austria:
European scientists, in evaluating USPHS claims of fluoride dental benefits, find these supposed benefits are random, i.e. not dose-related, and are unconvincing whereas the toxicity (dental fluorosis) is dose-related.24
Nobel Prize winners opposed to fluoridation
Apart from three Nobel Prize winners among the names above, another thirteen Nobel Prize winners in chemistry and medicine have either opposed fluoridation or expressed reservations about it:25
Adolf Butenandt (Chemistry, 1939)
Arvid Carlsson (Chemistry, 2000)
Hans von Euler-Chelpin (Chemistry, 1929)
Walter Rudolf Hess (Medicine, 1949)
Corneille Jean-François Heymans (Medicine, 1938)
Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood (Chemistry, 1956)
Joshua Lederberg (Medicine, 1958)
William P. Murphy (Medicine, 1934)
Giulio Natta (Chemistry, 1963)
Sir Robert Robinson (Chemistry, 1947)
Nikolai Semenov (Chemistry, 1956)
James B. Sumner (Chemistry, 1946)
Artturi Virtanen (Chemistry, 1945)
1.Colquhoun J. Influence of social class and fluoridation on child dental health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1985; 13(1): 37–41.
2.Famous quotes on fluoride and fluoridation. Leading Edge Research Group. http://www.trufax.org/fluoride/quotes.html.
3.A crack appears in the fluoride front: After surveying the growing evidence, a high-profile advocate has second thoughts about the safety of fluoride. Report by Michael Downey, Toronto Star, 25 April 1999.
4.Meinig GE. Fluorine could be trouble. Ojai Valley News, 5 January 1986.
5.Murakami T. Dose for incipient acute fluoride intoxication: True science and false science. Fluoride 1998; 31: 55–6.
6.Sutton PRN. Fluoridation: a fifty-year-old accepted but unconfirmed hypothesis. Med Hypotheses 1988; 2: 153–6.
7.Yiamouyiannis J. Fluoride: The aging factor. Delaware, OH: Health Action Press, 1986.
8.Testimony of Robert J. Carton before the Honorable Judge Peter Grim, State of Wisconsin, Circuit Court, Fond du Lac County, Decision and Order Case No. 92-C579. June 29, 1993, Safe Water Association, Inc. v. City of Fond du Lac.
9.Connett P. The fluoridation of drinking water: a house of cards waiting to fall. Part 1: The science. Waste Not#373. November 1993. Canton, NY: Work on Waste USA.
10.Diesendorf M, Colquhoun J, Spittle B et al. New evidence on fluoridation. Aust & NZ J Public Health 1997; 21: 187–90.
11.Erickson DJ. Mortality in selected cities with fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies. N Engl J Med 1978; 298: 1112–6.
12.Foulkes RG, Anderson AC. Impact of artificial fluoridation on salmon species in the northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride 1994; 27: 220–6.
13.Should Natick fluoridate? A report to the town and the Board of Selectmen, prepared by the Natick Fluoridation Study Committee, Natick, MA, October 23, 1997. http://www.cadvision.com/fluoride/natick.htm
14.Leading Edge Research Group. http://www.trufax.org/fluoride/fluorides.html.
15.Hill DR. Fluoride: risks and benefits? Disinformation in the service of big industry. Paper presented at the public forum on fluoride and fluoridation, sponsored by the Chemical Institute of Canada and CADACT, Petroleum Recovery Institute, Calgary, Canada, 29 September 1992.
16.Hirzy JW. EPA scientists take stand against fluoridation. http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/070797.htm.
17.Letter from the University of Kansas (Chemistry) to Dr Bruce Alberts, president, National Academy of Sciences, 15 October 1997. http://www.sonic.net/~kryptox/nutri/alberts.htm.
18.Letter from Donald Kennedy, also signed by Paul Ehrlich, to Consumers Union, 4 March 1969. http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/book.htm.
19.Krook L. Abstracts of papers presented at the XXIInd Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Bellingham, Washington, USA, 24–27 August 1998. http://www.trufax.org/fluoride/23rd.html.
20.http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm.
21.Gritsan NP, Miller GW, Schumatkov GG. Correlation among heavy metals and fluoride in soil, air and plants in relation to environmental damage. Fluoride 1995; 28: 180–8.
22.Spittle B. Psychopharmacology of fluoride: A review. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 9: 79–82.
23.Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons. http://www.cadvision.com/fluoride/quotes.htm
24.Ziegelbecker R. Fluoridated water and teeth. Fluoride 1981; 14: 123–8.
25.IFIN #218: Nobel Prize winners concerned about fluoridation. Fluoride Action Network, http://www.fluoridealert.org