Toothpaste, Water & Fluoride - Poison?

by JASON | 12:30 PM in |

Are You Poisoning Your Children?

It needs to be clearly stated that this Poison Control warning is not unique to Crest. It appears on ALL fluoride toothpaste. It just happened to be that Crest was the least expensive fluoride toothpaste at the store the day I purchased it for a copy of the warning.

Fluoride is a corrosive chemical more poisonous than lead, that was once sold as rat poison. Yet the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) encourages us to use it. (Why do they hate our children so much?) It is added to most toothpastes, as well as to more than 60 percent of U.S. water supplies annually.

Since the 1950s, fluoridation proponents have steadfastly maintained that the safety factor of water fluoridation (1 ppm) in relation to the acutely lethal dose is 2,250- to 4,500-fold in adults (represents 5 to 10 grams NaF), and about 250- to 500-fold in a child. In other words, the amount of sodium fluoride (NaF) required to result in acute poisoning causing fatality was 5 to 10 grams (NaF is 45% fluoride ion). This range for toxicity was provided by Harold C. Hodge, the same man who was responsible for erroneously reporting that it would take a daily fluoride intake of "20-80 mg" before skeletal fluorosis would occur in the average individual. Based on several occurrences of water fluoridation over-feeds and individual poisoning reports, It is now known that fluoride's "Probably Toxic Dose" which "should trigger therapeutic intervention and hospitilization -- is 5 mg/kg of bodyweight." This means that many dental products found at home contain more than enough fluoride to kill or seriously harm a small child if ingested.

The safety problem of this treatment has become increasingly important. Fluoride retention after fluoride mouth rinsing is considered to be 15% to 30% of the rinsing water (that is, ingested fluoride = fluoride in the rinsing water -- fluoride in the rinsing water spat out = fluoride swallowed + fluoride absorbed through the mucus membrane of the mouth). According to the toxic doses estimated in the cases of fluoride poisoning in the USA, this amount of fluoride retention is able to cause acute fluoride poisoning. However there appears to be no clear basis for estimating toxic doses of fluoride currently used.

Table 6 shows a 1991 report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers in the Rocky Mountains, Colorado, which included 87 children with fluoride poisoning from mistaken swallowing of fluoride-containing products during the year January 1 to December 31, 1986. Among the 87 cases, 85 were of mistaken ingestion of fluoride tablets, fluoride drops and fluoridated mouth-rinsing water in children 8 months to 6 years of age, the most common age being 2 to 3 years. One child of 8 and another of 9 developed symptoms after receiving a dental fluoride application and a fluoride mouth rinsing at a dental clinic. A 13-month-old child died from ingestion of a fluoride-containing pesticide.

More info...

excerpt from Material Data Safety Sheet for Aquafresh Kids toothpaste...

Hazardous Ingredients:


Never attempt to induce vomiting. Do not attempt to give any solid or liquid by mouth if the exposed subject is unconscious or semi-conscious. Wash out the mouth with water. If the exposed subject is fully conscious, give plenty of water to drink. Obtain medical attention.


Physical form suggests that risk of inhalation exposure is negligible. Skin Contact Using appropriate personal protective equipment, remove contaminated clothing and flush exposed area with large amounts of water. Obtain medical attention if skin reaction occurs, which may be immediate or delayed.

Eye Contact:

Wash immediately with clean and gently flowing water. Continue for at least 15 minutes. Obtain medical attention.

* Carcinogenicity:

Not expected to produce cancer in humans under occupational exposure conditions. Contains a material classified as a carcinogen by external agencies. (IARC) Animal carcinogen. Carcinogenic activity was seen in inhalation studies using laboratory animals. High concentrations or doses administered over an extended period of time were required to produce adverse effects.


Strong evidence of human neurotoxicity
Human nervous system toxicant - moderate evidence
One or more animal studies show broad systemic effects at very low doses
One or more in vitro tests on mammalian cells show positive mutation results

It's restricted from Canadian cosmetics.


Produces excess reactive oxygen species that can interfere with cellular signaling, cause mutations, lead to cell death and may be implicated in cardiovascular disease.
One or more animal studies show respiratory changes at very low doses where the human health implications are not yet well understood.
Limited evidence of carcinogenicity
Persistent, bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans
One or more animal studies show immune effects at low doses
Moderate human health concern based on exposure and toxicity
One or more animal studies show respiratory effects at very low doses
One or more animal studies show cardiovascular effects at very low doses
One or more animal studies show significant but moderate pulmonary irritation at low doses

Warning Label for Aquafresh Kids toothpaste:

Warnings: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.

Here is the recommendation on the amount to be used from Dental Professional website....

Why shouldn't Aquafresh® Toothpaste be swallowed?

No toothpaste product is formulated for intentional swallowing. Although toothpaste products are formulated to be pleasant tasting, they are not confectionery items.

In early 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required fluoride toothpaste manufacturers to place a specific warning on toothpaste packages. The purpose of this warning* is to convey the message that if large amounts of fluoride are swallowed, they can be harmful or fatal. It is important to keep in mind that the amount of fluoride contained in toothpaste will not cause harm if an average amount is used and if the toothpaste is not swallowed. (An average amount would be the amount used to cover bristles, or less). It is also important to remember that fluoride is critical in the maintenance of healthy teeth, and is recommended by doctors and dentists for use in the form of toothpastes, fluoridated water and fluoride drops.

*Current as of early 1997: "Warnings: If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional assistance or contact a poison control center immediately."

bold mine...

How many parents supervise how much toothpaste their children use?

How many kids use a "pea sized" or less amount?

Especially when its "bubble mint" or "bubble gum", flavored?

New Barbie® BURSTIN' bubblegum
Got a Barbie girl? Make brushing fun with Crest Barbie BURSTIN' Bubblegum Toothpaste. Your kid will love the sparkling gel that has a kid-tested bubblegum flavor they will truly enjoy.

New cinnsational SWIRL
You won't have to tell them twice. Kids will rush to brush with new Crest Wild Expressions Toothpaste flavor cinnsational SWIRL. Kids helped create this flavor so you know it's just to their taste. They'll want to brush longer and more often.

Colgate Dora the Explorer, Sponge Bob, or Shrek with Mild Bubble Fruit Flavor

Colgate 2 in 1 - Comes in fun and tasty flavors, Strawberry and Watermelon


If they only wanted you to use a small amount why would they sweeten it with sodium saccharin?

Use of sodium saccharin is common in all major brands of toothpaste to make the products more palatable. Without the use of such a sweetener, toothpaste would not be appealing enough taste-wise and could result in the avoidance of brushing one's teeth and the benefits of brushing. The formulations of Aquafresh® are accepted by the FDA, and have been tested by consumers.

Saccharin has been around for over 100 years and claims to be the best researched sweetener. Saccharin is also known as Sweet and Low, Sweet Twin, Sweet'N Low, and Necta Sweet. It does not contain any calories, does not raise blood sugar levels and is 200 to 700 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar).

What they don't declare is how much sodium saccharin is in the tastes like candy to me....

Sodium fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation (of dusts or aerosols) and ingestion.[8] In high enough doses, it has been shown to affect the heart and circulatory system, and the lethal dose for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g.[5]

Fluoride-containing compounds are so diverse that it is not possible to generalize on their toxicity, which depends on their reactivity and structure, and in the case of salts, their solubility and ability to release fluoride ions.

Soluble fluoride salts, of which NaF is the most common, are mildly toxic but have resulted in both accidental and suicidal deaths from acute poisoning.[6] While the minimum fatal dose in humans is not known, a case of a fatal poisoning of an adult with 4 grams of NaF is documented.[20] Sodium fluorosilicate, Na2SiF6 with its higher fluorine content, can cause death with as little as 0.2 g.[citation needed] The fatal period ranges from 5 min to 12 hours.[20] The mechanism of toxicity involves the combination of the fluoride anion with the calcium ions in the blood to form insoluble calcium fluoride, resulting in hypocalcemia; calcium is indispensable for the function of the nervous system, and the condition can be fatal. Treatment may involve oral administration of dilute calcium hydroxide or calcium chloride to prevent further absorption, and injection of calcium gluconate to increase the calcium levels in the blood.[20] Hydrogen fluoride is more dangerous than salts such as NaF because it is corrosive and volatile, and can result in fatal exposure through inhalation or contact with the skin; calcium gluconate gel is the usual antidote.[21]

A few organofluorine compounds are extremely toxic, such as organophosphates like sarin and diisopropylfluorophosphate that react with the cholinesterase enzyme at neuromuscular junctions and thus block the transmission of nerve impulses to the muscles.[22] Here, a reactive fluorine-phosphorus bond in the inhibitor is the site of nucleophilic attack by a serine residue in the enzyme's active site, causing the loss of a F− ion and alkylation and inactivation of the enzyme.

While PTFE itself is chemically inert and non-toxic, it begins to deteriorate near or above 500 °F (260 °C), and decompose completely at temperatures above 660 °F (350 °C).[23] These degradation products can be lethal to birds, and can cause flu-like symptoms in humans.[23] In comparison, cooking fats, oils, and butter will begin to scorch and smoke at about 392 °F (200 °C), and meat is usually fried between 400–450 °F (200–230 °C), but empty cookware can exceed this temperature if left unattended on a hot burner.

A 1959 study, (conducted before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the material for use in food processing equipment) showed that the toxicity of fumes given off by the coated pan on dry heating was less than that of fumes given off by ordinary cooking oils.[24]

Here is an example of some destructive ingredients found in many name-brand toothpastes.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS): Foaming agent with many side effects

One of the most harmful ingredients in personal-care products is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS). Because SLS has a foaming property, it is added to toothpastes in order to generate foam and give the impression that the toothpaste is working. However, SLS has been found to be quite corrosive and harmful to skin tissue. The journal of the American College of Toxicology reports that SLS can penetrate and be retained in the eye, brain, heart, and liver with harmful long term side effects.

In the cleaning industry, SLS is used in products such as garage floor cleaners, engine degreasers and car wash soaps!

In allergy studies, SLS is used for clinical testing as a primary skin irritant as it is the one chemical known to provoke an allergic reaction in everyone. Molecular weight of SLS is 40 (Ingredients with a molecular weight of 75 or lower enters our blood stream). SLS and its derivative family of chemicals are used in biotech engineering to carry other chemicals through the skin.

Sodium Fluoride: from industrial waste to rat poison to mind meddler

Most toothpaste and mouth rinses contain fluoride because that's what dentists have recommended for years to prevent cavities. But more and more scientists are now seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride even in small amounts. Colgate toothpaste contains enough fluoride in four ounces to kill a small child within 2 to 4 hours!

Fluorides have been used throughout history to alter the behavior and mood of human beings. It is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them quiet and to hamper noncompliance with authority, both in Nazi prison camps during World War II and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia.

Fluoride is proselytized by the dental profession because it is widely believed that fluoride lodged in the tooth makes it slightly more acid-resistant and less prone to decay. What is not widely known is that fluoride lodged in bones and teeth makes them more brittle.

No matter how well you rinse, the combination of sodium laureth sulphate and fluoride ensures that more fluoride is absorbed into your bloodstream than gets to soak into your teeth.

Triclosan: A pesticide found in many types of toothpaste

Triclosan, a chemical used by mainstream toothpaste manufacturers for its antibacterial properties. It is an ingredient found in many detergents and most toothpastes. However, the formulation and structure of this ingredient are similar to some of the most toxic chemicals. It is a proven fact that with correct diet and hygiene all dental disease is banished. Applying antibacterial agents kills the good and bad bacteria alike, and can lead to imbalances in the bacterial ecologies of the whole digestive tract. Because of this fact, triclosan has been scrutinized in regards to human health and safety, according to Tufts University School of Medicine. While the companies that manufacture products containing triclosan claim that it is safe, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered it as a dangerous pesticide.

Copolymer: A glue used in hair gel and paint

Most toothpastes now contain acrylic copolymers to glue the triclosan and fluoride to the teeth in the belief that this increases their benefits. When in fact it increases the side effects of those chemicals. Acrylic polymers are also potential carcinogens.

Hydrated Silica: A whitener that wears away tooth enamel

Hydrated silica, which is primarily used as an abrasive in toothpaste, is made from a crystallized compound found in quartz, sand, and flint. Tooth enamel re-mineralizes daily from the supply of ionic calcium and phosphorus in the saliva. Wearing away the surface of the tooth with an abrasive such as hydrated silica harms the enamel and prevents re-mineralization. Severe wear eventually occurs causing the need for dental treatment to replace lost enamel.

The irritation caused by chemical toothpastes can include sore mouth and gums, wearing away of tooth enamel, sore tongue, and sloughing of mucous membrane. They also may do harm to dental health by altering the microbial balance of the mouth and digestive tract.

Artificial flavourings and sweeteners (e.g. petrochemically derived aspartame)

The burning tingling sensation of most toothpastes is not caused by mint, but the toxic chemicals used in the base. People come to be convinced that the burn is good for them, but in fact is an allergic reaction!

The mouth is the body’s silent alarm system, the window to the body, it can tell you a lot if you observe and listen to its signals. If you have your teeth cleaned on a regular schedule but your gums bleed easily from any type of stimulation, and you practice good oral hygiene routinely, this is usually a signal of a nutritional deficiency (vitamins and minerals), hormonal or chemical imbalance, or a systemic disorder. Your body talks to you – listen. The body’s imbalance can be the result of stress, lack of exercise, diet, love, insufficient daily water intake or medication. All of these factors have an effect on the bacteria in the mouth! A healthy balance of bacteria is the root of good health.
Current research links pathogens(bad bacteria) in the mouth to heart disease, diabetes, pulmonary infections, some urinary tract infections, lymphatic imbalance, and intestinal disorders. Most secondary infections of non-ambulatory patients are being linked to the imbalance of bacteria in the mouth.

Practicing good daily hygiene isn’t enough. If you don’t supply your body with the fuel it needs to function properly, it will break down. Excess of refined carbohydrates and sugars not only weakens the teeth and causes abscesses, it plays havoc with energy metabolism. The time you take to learn what your body requires daily will pay dividends for years to come. Remember: Your body is what you put in it. Avoiding allergenic, biotoxic, chemical toothpastes containing the ingredients listed above is a good foundation for being healthier.

Here's another issue...perhaps a little is beneficial....but how do you regulate it?

For example, any processed food is made in a large production plant that most likely uses municipal water that most likely contains fluoride. So everything from cold cereal to lasagna contains fluoride.

Sodium Fluoride Oral Uses

This medication is used to prevent cavities. It makes teeth stronger and more resistant to decay caused by acid and bacteria.

This medication is not recommended for use in infants less than 6 months of age.

This medication is not recommended for use in areas where the fluoride content in the water supply is greater than 0.6 parts per million. See Notes section for more information.

Question 3.
Is there a difference in the effectiveness between naturally occurring fluoridated water at optimal fluoride levels and water that has fluoride added to reach the optimal level?

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Short Answer
No. The dental benefits of optimally fluoridated water occur regardless of the fluoride's source.

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Long Answer
Fluoride is present in water as "ions" or electrically charged atoms.27 These ions are the same whether acquired by water as it seeps through rocks and sand or added to the water supply under carefully controlled conditions. When fluoride is added under controlled conditions to fluoride-deficient water, the dental benefits are the same as those obtained from naturally fluoridated water. Fluoridation is merely a supplementation of the naturally occurring fluoride present in all drinking water sources.

Some individuals mistakenly use the term "artificial fluoridation" to imply that the process of water fluoridation is unnatural and that it delivers a foreign substance into a water supply when, in fact, all water sources contain some fluoride. Community water fluoridation is a natural way to improve oral health.28 (Additional discussion on this topic may be found in Question 32.) Prior to the initiation of "adjusted" water fluoridation, several classic epidemiological studies were conducted that compared naturally occurring fluoridated water to fluoride-deficient water. Strikingly low decay rates were found to be associated with the continuous use of water with fluoride content of 1 part per million.5

A fluoridation study conducted in the Ontario, Canada, communities of Brantford (optimally fluoridated by adjustment), Stratford (optimally fluoridated naturally) and Sarnia (fluoride-deficient) revealed much lower decay rates in both Brantford and Stratford as compared to nonfluoridated Sarnia. There was no observable difference in decay-reducing effect between the naturally occurring fluoride and adjusted fluoride concentration water supplies, proving that dental benefits were similar regardless of the source of fluoride.29

Repeat of Question 3.
Is there a difference in the effectiveness between naturally occurring fluoridated water at optimal fluoride levels and water that has fluoride added to reach the optimal level?

Opposition's Response

Fluoride, as such, is never added to the water. Only silicofluorides (a hazardous waste containing many toxic pollutants) are used to artificially fluoridate water, and studies have proven that they do not effectively prevent tooth decay, they only delay it. (See opposition's response to Question 4). Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body will be different.

This was proven in a study called, "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds." After this study was completed, this statement was made: " ... this meant a daily intake of approximately 40 mg/kg of fluorine from sodium fluoride as compared with 3400 mg/kg from calcium fluoride. Therefore, from the standpoint of lethal concentrations and amount of fluorine necessary to cause growth inhibition, wide differences in toxicity of some of the compounds of fluoride were noted." (See 3-1: Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. July 1934, page 797). In other words, industrial waste (sodium fluoride) is 85 times more toxic than natural calcium fluoride. Both of them contain fluoride, but they are totally different compounds. (Also see 3-2).

Calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote accompanies a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Soft waters to which fluoride is artificially added lack this calcium which is present in most waters that contain natural fluoride.

"The claim that fluoridation is one of 'nature's experiments' is not valid because the salts put into the water supply, sodium fluoride or silicofluorides, are industrial products never found in natural water or in organisms. They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.

Reviews of The Fluoride Deception:

"Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride’s harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefi ted from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people. The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke renewed scientific scrutiny and public debate." - PUBLISHERS WEEKLY

"The arguments have raged for more than forty years, and in The Fluoride Deception, Christopher Bryson raises the stakes by reporting a great deal of relevant and often alarming research, and by telling a series of human stories... [A] thought-provoking and worthwhile book." - NATURE, "A Chemical Conspiracy?" March 17, 2005

"'The Fluoride Deception' reads like a whodunit. There are conspiracies, cover-ups, human casualties, and broken careers. The prime suspects in this toxic thriller are compounds of fluoride; the coconspirators represent industry, the military, and the public health community. At the book's ending, the suspect chemicals are not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but we are left with compelling evidence that powerful interests with high financial stakes have colluded to prematurely close honest discussion and investigation into fluoride toxicity." - CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS, "Is Fluoride Really All that Safe?", August 16, 2004. (Read full review)

"On several levels, this book easily reaches the level of Wow... very much a Must Read..." - THE MIDWEST BOOK REVIEW

"Journalists and watchdog groups regularly raise hell about just the sort of industry corruption of public health policy described in The Fluoride Deception. We don't brand the watchdogs as conspiracy theorists; we thank them for doing their job. After reading Bryson's account of our national infatuation with fluoride, it's hard not to wonder how we could have ignored so serious an issue for so long." - NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, "On Earth" Newsletter, Fall 2004 (Read full review)

"Bryson, an investigative reporter, explores various aspects of fluoride information and disinformation, from huge industrial exposures in making atom bombs to the much lower doses desired to protect teeth from decay. This is a well-researched, well-written, and well-referenced account... [A]n interesting, thought-provoking, and eye-opening work. Summing Up: Recommended. All levels." - CHOICE Magazine (Current Reviews for Academic Libraries) March 2005

"This startling and terrifying book could not be more timely." - THE ECOLOGIST, "Book of the Month", September 2004

"This shocking anthology of incriminating stories and scientific discoveries is a must read for every consumer who owns a toothbrush." - E MAGAZINE, "The Toxic Compound with a Polished Image" July 1, 2004.

"Christopher Bryson is an excellent narrator, and he reports on recent research previously not known to me... It is my sincere hope that his book will receive the attention it deserves and that its implications will be seriously considered." - DR. ARVID CARLSSON, 2000 Nobel Prize Laureate for Medicine

"As with landmark titles, such as Silent Spring, Bryson's book is bound to become a seminal volume. Its thoroughness leaves little debate on the manipulation and deceit that has resulted in every facet of our waking lives being engulfed in a chemical pollutant." - BRITISH COLUMBIA NATUROPATHIC ASSOCIATION

“In a court of law, circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence if enough exists. The circumstantial evidence gathered by Bryson is so vast, and so impressive-sounding, that lots of readers are quite likely to ask their dentists about whether they should continue using toothpaste with fluoride.” – THE CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, “Fluoride is hurting us, investigator says”, August 22, 2004

"The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, just published in the US, examines the background of the fluoridation debate. Bryson, who has had the advantage of access to recently declassified files, concludes that fluoridation is a triumph not of medical science but of US government spin.'" - THE GUARDIAN, "A Kick in the Teeth", June 8, 2004

"The Fluoride Deception points to the suppression of medical information, the sacking of experts who found damaging evidence of potentially nasty side-effects that governments didn't want to hear and a powerful political lobby that grasped fluoridation as a cheap means of mass medication." - IRISH INDEPENDENT, "Teething Trouble", June 22, 2004

"In much the same way biologist Rachel Carson warned us over forty years ago in Silent Spring about the havoc and harm being caused by the misuse of persistent pesticides, journalist Christopher Bryson here lays bare the secret story and hidden dangers of the introduction of fluoride chemicals from the cold war era into our drinking water. The Fluoride Deception presents a scorching indictment of how researchers and health care officials working closely with government agencies, big industry, and their attorneys have allowed themselves to surrender their responsibility for the medical well-being of their fellow citizens." - DR. ALBERT W. BURGSTAHLER, former president of the International Society for Fluoride Research and Emeritus Professor of Organic Chemistry, University of Kansas

"The Fluoride Deception compellingly and inescapably exposes the murderous fraud that heads of state and industry have for decades perpetrated on an innocent public. Extremely well written and tightly researched, The Fluoride Deception is sure to become the 'must read' book in this important and burgeoning field." - DERRICK JENSEN, author of The Culture of Make Believe and A Language Older Than Words

"Bryson is right on in his emphasis on the ineffectiveness of fluoridation of water with industrial wastes, and its risks of nerve and brain damage, and cancer, coupled with the long-standing industrial conspiracy to suppress this information." - DR. SAM EPSTEIN, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health

The 5 Hidden Dangers In Toothpaste
By: Scott Baker

A Must Read if You Have Children

Would you allow your family to brush their teeth with engine degreaser or rat poison? The fact is, they probably are and you don’t even know it. See for specific list.

Dental hygiene products that you and your children use every day may contain toxins that have been linked to cancer, blindness, and even death. Have you checked out the ingredients in your toothpaste or mouthwash lately?

Many name-brand toothpastes and mouthwashes contain potentially harmful ingredients, which are made up of very small molecules that may penetrate through the tissue of your mouth, enter the blood stream, and build up in the liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, and tissues.

Did you ever wonder why manufacturers are required to put the following warning label on toothpastes?

Just read the label on any major brand toothpaste or mouthwash. You’ll see they are loaded with dangerous toxins and chemicals such as sodium fluoride, triclosan, FD&C Blue Dye #1 and 2, sodium lauryl sulfate, and hydrated silica. All of these common ingredients have been found to be harmful to humans. (From the Safe Shoppers Bible)

Sodium Fluoride: One of the main ingredients in rat poison and toothpaste

Many people are probably aware that most toothpaste and many mouth rinses contain fluoride because that’s what dentists have recommended for years to prevent cavities. But did you know that most popular toothpastes contain enough fluoride in four ounces to kill a small child within 2 to 4 hours? (From “Fluoride Retained From Mouth Rinses and Dentifrices in Preschool Children.”

In children and youth, minimal ingestion of sodium fluoride causes salivation, nausea, vomiting, epigastric pain, and diarrhea. Large doses of the carcinogen may cause paralysis, muscular weakness and clonic convulsions, followed by respiratory and cardiac failure. (From “Commercial Toothpaste - Natural or Poison?”)

It’s no wonder that fluoride can cause death in humans! In addition to being one of the main ingredients in toothpaste as well as rat and cockroach poisons, sodium fluoride is also a key component in anesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs and SARIN NERVE GAS! (From “Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats” & “Dental Conditions in Workers Chronically Exposed to Dilute and Anhydrous Hydrofluoric Acid”)

Fluorides have been used throughout history to alter the behavior and mood of human beings. It is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them quiet and to hamper noncompliance with authority, both in Nazi prison camps during World War II and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia. (From The Cold War and the University)

Surprisingly, fluoride has NEVER been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Additionally, a 1990 study stated that fluoride has been shown to NOT reduce cavities and scientists are now linking fluoride to dental deformity, arthritis, allergic reactions and about 10,000 unnecessary deaths each year from cancer. (From “Fluoride an equivocal carcinogen. National Cancer Institute)

FD&C Blue Dye # 1 & 2: Are you eating crude oil for breakfast?

These dyes are artificial colorings often found in familiar toothpaste brands and a wide variety of other products. Recent studies indicate that FD & C Blue Dyes 1 & 2 can trigger a wide number of behavioral, learning, and health problems. FD&C color dyes may also cause potentially severe allergic reactions, asthma attacks, headaches, nausea, fatigue, nervousness, lack of concentration, and cancer. (From “Formation of carcinogenic aromatic amine from an azo dye by human skin bacteria in vitro” & “Skin discoloration with blue food coloring”)

Using FD & C Blue Dyes 1 & 2 is just like ingesting crude oil as it too, is synthesized from petroleum. These dyes were originally made from coal tar oil, which is a black, sticky tar by-product of steel making and petroleum distillation, and is a source of numerous complex chemicals. Through repeated human exposure, some of these isolated coal tar components were classified as active carcinogens, ultimately leading to government regulations and restrictions.

Nowadays, coal tar dyes are synthetically engineered rather than extracted from actual coal tar, thereby greatly reducing the possibility of being contaminated with carcinogenic residuals from the coal itself. However, the dyes still contain carcinogenic properties. Over several decades of use, some of these synthetic dyes have come under greater scientific and government scrutiny due to their carcinogenic and mutagenic activity. Because of this, they are still referred to in the industry as “coal tar dyes,” according to the FDA. (From U.S. Food & Drug Administration. “Color Additives Fact Sheet.”)

Even if toothpaste is never swallowed, these dyes can be absorbed within seconds through the skin on the lips, or through the mucous membrane in the mouth. According to the Physician’s Desk Reference, the mucosal lining inside of the mouth has an absorption efficiency of over 90 percent. Because of this, these carcinogens get into your blood, your brain, and your cells in no time at all – especially when you consider most people use dental care products 2 to 3 times a day. (From U.S. Food & Drug Administration. “Color Additives Fact Sheet.”)

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS): Used clinically to irritate skin

Perhaps the most dangerous ingredient in personal-care products is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS). Because SLS has a foaming property, it is added to toothpastes in order to generate foam and give the impression that the toothpaste is working. However, SLS has been found to be quite corrosive and harmful to skin tissue says a report by the American College of Toxicity.

In the cleaning industry, SLS is used in products such as garage floor cleaners, engine degreasers and car wash soaps. Elsewhere, SLS is used for clinical testing as a primary skin irritant. Laboratories use it to irritate skin on test animals and humans so that they may then test healing agents to see how effective they are on the irritated skin.

The journal of the American College of Toxicology reports that SLS can penetrate and be retained in the eye, brain, heart, and liver with potentially harmful long-term effects. Also found in most shampoos including “no tears” baby shampoos, SLS can keep children’s eyes from developing properly, can cause cataracts in adults, can retard healing, and can impair hair growth.

Triclosan: A pesticide found in many types of toothpaste

Triclosan, a chemical used for its antibacterial properties, is an ingredient found in many detergents and toothpastes. However, the formulation and structure of this ingredient are similar to some of the most toxic chemicals on earth. Because of this fact, triclosan has been scrutinized in regards to human health and safety, according to Tufts University School of Medicine.

While the companies that manufacture products containing triclosan claim that it is safe, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered it as a dangerous pesticide. The EPA gives triclosan high scores both as a human health risk and as an environmental risk.

Triclosan is a chlorophenol, which is a class of chemicals that is suspected of causing cancer in humans. Externally, phenol can cause a variety of skin irritations, but since it can temporarily deactivate sensory nerve endings, contact with it may cause little or no pain. Taken internally, even in small amounts, phenol can lead to cold sweats, circulatory collapse, convulsions, coma, and death.

Additionally, chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides can be stored in body fat, sometimes accumulating to toxic levels. Long term exposure to repeated use of many pesticide products can damage the liver, kidneys, heart and lungs, suppress the immune system, and cause hormonal disruption, paralysis, sterility and brain hemorrhages. (From . “Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings.” Environmental Protection Agency)

Hydrated Silica: A whitener that damages tooth enamel

Hydrated silica, which is primarily used as an abrasive in toothpaste, is made from a crystallized compound found in quartz, sand, and flint. (From “The Safe Shopper’s Bible”)

Tooth enamel re-mineralizes daily from the supply of ionic calcium and phosphorus in the saliva. Scratching the surface of the tooth with an abrasive such as hydrated silica harms the enamel and prevents re-mineralization, much like using sand to clean glass. Severe wear could eventually occur.

”The public is cautioned against excessive use of products containing ‘dioforms,’ which are abrasive substances that can cause the breakdown of tooth enamel. Products containing the ingredients silica and cellulose, in particular, should be avoided when gum disease, tooth decay, sensitivity and receding gums are present.

While these ingredients can remove tartar and make teeth whiter in appearance, they also may do harm to dental health by altering the acidic balance of the mouth, gums and tongue,” said Dr. Warren Scherer, New York University College of Dentistry, as reported by The Naples Daily News.

If you found this report interesting or helpful, please forward it to a friend or a loved one. There are healthier and safer alternatives located at:

Health risks from chemicals and toxins in oral hygiene products are the most avoidable of all the health risks we face. You don’t have to be a biochemist to get these risks out of your life. It’s as simple as changing brands. There are safe, new, low cost alternatives to toothpaste. These products as seen at: also offer pain free solutions to bleeding gums, receding gums and gum disease.

About The Author

Scott Baker writes articles that promote natural solutions for gum disease. You can visit his site at:

Scott Baker

The above guidelines are the typical warning labels and directions for toothpaste. Let’s examine the ingredients found in most toothpaste’s to find out why the FDA requires warning labels. The following are common ingredients found in toothpaste: hydrated silica, sorbitol, sodium saccharin, titanium dioxide, glycerin, sodium lauryl/laureth sulfate, and sodium fluoride.

Hydrated silica is made from a crystallized compound found in quartz, sand, and flint and is primarily used as an abrasive in toothpaste.

Sorbitol and sodium saccharin are both sweeteners and used as carriers and sweeteners in toothpaste.

Titanium dioxide is a pigment used for providing brightness and whiteness to such products as paint, plastics, paper, inks, fibers, food, and cosmetics; and is used as a stain remover/whitener in toothpaste.

Glycerin is a syrupy, sweet, colorless or yellowish liquid obtained from fats and oils and used as a solvent, antifreeze, plasticizer, and sweetener in the manufacture of dynamite, cosmetics, liquid soaps, inks, and lubricants. Glycerin prevents toothpaste from drying out and helps maintain product consistency.

Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is a powerful surfactant (wetting agents) and detergent. It has industrial and cosmetic uses and is used around the world in clinically studies as a skin irritant. The molecule is small enough to penetrate the skin and can enter the blood stream being carried to every organ of the body. SLS is used in toothpaste as a foaming and cleansing agent.

Sodium fluoride is a colorless crystalline salt used in fluoridation of water, in treatment of tooth decay, and as an insecticide and disinfectant. Sodium fluoride is used in toothpaste to harden the enamel of the teeth to prevent tooth decay.

You are probably as shocked as we were to discover what’s in toothpaste, and what we are exposing ourselves and our children to everyday. Although there are proponents that warn against the use of all of the above ingredients, sodium fluoride is the one ingredient that triggered the FDA to require warning labels on toothpaste. Here are some facts about fluoride.

The FDA lists fluoride as an “unapproved new drug” and the EPA lists fluoride as a “contaminant”. Fluoride has never received “FDA Approval” and is considered to be a toxic waste product from the fertilizer industry.

A July 1998 report for The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry states that at least 22% of all American children now have dental fluorosis as a result of ingesting too much fluoride. Fluorosis is light spots and discoloration forming on developing teeth of children. In advanced cases pitting of teeth can occur.

Fluoride has been linked to many harmful health effects including: Alzheimer’s, kidney damage, gastrointestinal problems, cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, bone and tooth decay, arthritis, and osteoporosis. Check the Internet for government and scientific reports validating this see

Battelle released the results of its study of fluorides and rats in April 1989. The study showed a dose-dependent relationship between the incidence of oral cancerous tumors and fluorides. After learning this, the National Cancer Institute did a study and found that as exposure to fluoridation increases, so does the incidence of oral cancer; sometimes by as much as 50%.

In 1990 forty US dentist brought a case against the American Dental Association contending that the Association purposefully shielded the public from data that links fluoride to genetic defects, cancer and other health problems (Columbus Dispatch, Oct 21, 1990). Since 1990 over 45 US cities have rejected fluoridation. Ninety eight percent of Europe’s drinking water is now fluoride free.

In 1986-1987, a study involving 39,207 children aged 5-17 showed no statistical difference in decay of teeth from using non-fluoridated or fluoridated water (Dr J. Yiamouyiannus Water Fluoridation & Tooth Decay Study, Fluoride 23:pp55-67, 1990.).

The FDA has determined toothpaste containing sodium fluoride enough of a risk to require warning labels. Historically, when the FDA requires warning labels there is a good reason for it. Look at the progression of cigarette warning labels: 1970 - Caution: Smoking may be hazardous to your health; 2000 – Surgeon Generals Warning: Smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and may complicate pregnancy.

Although there is a growing movement against the use of fluoride, there are also some big companies with deep pockets and strong lobbyist in Washington DC that want to continue selling fluoride. We suggest you find a use a safe, alternative to fluoridated toothpaste.

For an all natural solution to fluoridated toothpaste, gum disease, gingivitis, bleeding gums and bad breath check out this highly effective product. 100% guaranteed to work.

It is impossible to consistently supply any medication through the drinking water. People are very unique in their sensitivity to drugs and resent being medicated without their consent. Adding fluoride to drinking water invariably leads to uncontrolled random dosages. Infants and adults who drink more beverages will be overdosed. There are many well documented scientifically verified negative side-effects from exposure to fluoride.

The effect of any medication (poison or drug) is proportional to the weight of the individual. Since bottle fed babies are on an all liquid diet they will be dosed the most fluoride. An infant drinking 32 ounces of liquid a day would receive a daily dose more than 1 mg. There is wide variation in the amount of water we consumed. It changes from individual to individual, winter to summer, hot to cool climates, lifestyles sedentary versus energetic and with age. 1% of the population consume over 5 liters of water per day.

There is also wide variation in the level of fluoride found in our food and in the water. The fluoride at the faucet may vary from .1 ppm to as high as 4 ppm according to the EPA mean contaminant levels. Excessive fluoride in the water from accidental overfeed has poisoned literally thousands of people and recently killed a Native American in Alaska.1 A disease known as diabetes insipidus causes the victim to drink massive amounts of water every day. Kidney dialysis patients have died from undergoing dialysis with fluoridated city water. 2

Malnourished and minority children are most susceptible to dental fluorosis.3 The athlete or physical laborer who drink large quantities of water will obviously be dosed with far more fluoride than the elderly. Infants, due to their small body weight and total dependence on fluid nourishment, will receive a proportionately larger dose than the adult. The fact that human breast milk is relatively low in fluoride should be some indications of what our creator had in mind for the baby. Infants fed on formula prepared from tap water are at the greatest risk.

FDA scientist have reported that fluoride in the drinking water adversely affects fertility rates in women. They found a very close correlation between decreasing fertility rates in women between ages 10 to 49, and increasing fluoride levels. They also reported that a review of all of the animal studies done to date shows that fluoride affects fertility in most other animal species as well.4

No margin for safety exists since increased hip fractures and osteosclerosis are scientifically associated with water fluoridation.

The proponents of fluoridation admit the relatively narrow range between the claimed "therapeutic" dental dose and the onset of toxicity. In several countries severe skeletal fluorosis has been documented from water containing 0.7 parts per million (ppm).5 In medicine we generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) along the order of 100. A therapeutic index as low as zero is simply unacceptable. The latest research from France on the hip fracture issue found that, "The risk of hip fracture was significantly higher when water fluorine concentration was higher than 0.11 mg/L".6 (0.11 ppm)

Several studies have found that fluoride inhibits broken bone healing and contributes to damage from osteoporosis and abnormal collagen formation.7 Dr. Jennifer Jowsey, one of the originators of the theory that fluoride might help osteoporosis, admitted that fluoride was producing osteoporosis in some bones and at the same time osteosclerosis in others.8 (abnormal and weak bone formation) Dr. J.C. Robins has also noted this deleterious effect.9 Drs. Aksyuk and Bulychev found that the consumption of as little as 1.6 ppm water caused premature aging in the bones of 15-16 year old girls, as well as calcification of the inter osseous membranes and irregular bone formation.10 Remember earlier that I explained that fluoride caused the ameloblasts to lay down irregular enamel. It seems clear that at the same dose level where fluorosis occurs, the osteoblasts also produce abnormal bone growth. These effects may have a delayed response which is not seen until the sixth or seventh decade of life.

In 1990 a large national survey of hip fracture rates published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found a dramatic link between fluoridated water and the frequency of hip fracture.11 This study closely followed a report in the New England Journal of Medicine which found that attempts to treat osteoporosis with fluoride actually increased the disease and resulted in increased bone fractures.12

Fluoride intake is already excessive. . . children fed "home cooked" foods and formula made with fluoridated water will grossly be overdosed.

In 1949 the United States Public Health Service researcher F. J. McClure reported that the dietary fluoride intake averaged only 0.2- 0.3 mg/day.13 In 1969 a study by H. Spencer, M.D. found adults in the Chicago area consumed 3.57 to 5.37 mg/day.14 Everyone agrees that this amount is excessive. The FDA ruled in 1989 that Fluoride is not a required nutrient since deficiency diseases cannot be produced. Fluoride has been added to the drinking water of 50% of this nation for almost five decades. Every processed food product or beverage prepared in a fluoridated community contains fluoride. It is simply impossible to avoid this toxic waste substance

Few children eat an average amount of anything. It is not the average child that is at risk here. Those unfortunate infants subjected to home cooking are at the greatest risk. It is also the hypersensitive child who is the prime target of this toxic substance, as well as children who consume more than average amounts of water. Infants who consume water based formulas and processed chicken are clearly at risk as shown by the data from recent nutritional studies.15 Glen S. R.Walker wrote, "An average six month old baby weighing 16 to 20 pounds should consume 2 1/2 ounces of milk per pound body weight per day, making the weight of its daily milk between 40 to 50 ounces. If a powdered milk formula is used and prepared with fluoridated water, the infant will consume, from water alone, well over 1 milligram per day. this is four times the maximum recommended in 1977, by the U.S. Council on Dental Therapeutics."16 1 milligram per day for an adult with an average weight of 160 LB is the "recommended level" and equates to 1/8 of a milligram per day for an infant weighing 20 pounds.

It is irresponsible for dentists and public health officials to advocate the addition of a toxic substance to the community water supply without absolute proof of safety. Since voluminous data already exists indicating fluoride is not a benign substance, and is in fact one of the more toxic substances known to mankind the proof of safety must be able to withstand the most rigorous scientific inspection. The fact is that having a community water supply dispense a toxic substance will overdose many of the children.

Fluoride is a carcinogen.

In 1977 Burk and Yiamouyiannis reported a higher rate of cancer in a broad ten year epidemiological study of fluoridated versus non- fluoridated communities. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) claimed to have found no significant increases. During L. H. Fountain's congressional investigations of fluoridation the NCI Director, Arthur Kraybill, admitted making false representations and numerical errors in their studies. When these US PHS studies were corrected for the NCI "math" errors, they too showed a 5% increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated communities.17 There are numerous laboratory and epidemiological studies which support our concern for the toxicity of this material.18

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. As a direct result of these hearings independent testing was ordered to begin immediately. Twelve years later they managed to produce a two year toxicological study of rats. They paid Battelle Research Institute of Columbus Ohio, an outside contractor, to run the study.

The Battelle Study

Battelle found a very positive correlation to the amount of fluoride consumed and the size, number and kind of cancer the mice developed.19 The study ran for only two years or about the life span of the animals. The animals were awash with illness and abnormalities of all kinds including kidney disease, liver disease, blood diseases, tumors, and cancer. In particular the fluoride groups showed thyroid adenomas, dysplasias of the oral mucosa, liver cancer of a very rare type (hepatocholangiocarcinomas), and osteosarcomas of which one appeared in the mid-range male rat and four appeared in high-range male rats. Female rats exhibited dose-related osteosclerosis and all fluoridated rodents developed dental fluorosis.

It is significant that the bone fluoride levels of the high-range were approximately the same as found in humans who live 15-20 years in a fluoridated community. Thus, the tissue levels of the highest dose tested were, in fact, no different than what humans will experience. I can recall no other carcinogen test where short lived animals were exposed to exactly the same level as humans.

Political Manipulation of the Battelle Study

The findings of the Battelle study where in direct contradiction to the frequently published claims of absolute safety. In an attempt to defuse this politically embarrassing bomb shell the US PHS arranged a pro-fluoride committee to review the research. The peer review committee was given an incomplete and drastically modified summary of the data. In the report they received, every tumor was downgraded at least one level. One tumor, the largest osteosarcoma, was eliminated entirely. The hepatocholangiocarcinomas which by itself was a significant finding was reduced to a hepatoma.

Dr. Mel Reuber Opposes The Manipulative Downgrading

Dr. Mel Reuber, the pathologist credited with first diagnosing this unusual lesion, reviewed the pathology slides and stated that he disagreed with the down grading. He stated that his independent review of the pathology slides from the Battelle study showed without a doubt that the lesions were in fact hepatocholangiocarcinomas.

Others tumors were dismissed through what was termed "historical controls". This type of statistical manipulation is not considered by the scientific community as a valid scientific approach. The National Toxicological Program (NTP) committee used the tumor data from control animals in other unrelated studies where the intake of fluoride was not strictly controlled. The fact that some of the control rats also developed similar cancers, was used as justification for the elimination of many of the cancers from the Battelle study. This approach was not valid since the "historical controls" were animals from other studies where their feed contained significant quantities of fluoride. Their actual dose fell between the low and mid-range dose animals of the Battelle study. The tumor incidence they experienced agreed with the predicted incidence from the Battelle study. The committee was not informed that the "control animals", fed commercially processed rat chow, had received a higher dose of fluoride than the low dose animals in the Battelle study.

Dr. William Marcus Opposes The Manipulative Downgrading

Dr. William Marcus, senior scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Division, speaking before the Chemical and Engineering Society stated that in his 20 years at the EPA he had never seen a study where every finding had been significantly downgraded in this manner. His review of the data showed an unusually clear straight line correlating between the dose of fluoride and type and number of tumors developed, including the historical controls. Furthermore, he stated that it is unprecedented for an animal study of a potential carcinogen to be conducted at the same dosage level as humans. In his opinion the findings were grossly manipulated.20

Despite all of these manipulations the study was found to show evidence of carcinogenicity and fluoride was ruled an equivocal carcinogen.


In the largest U.S. study on fluoridation and tooth decay, U.S. Public Health Service dental records of over 39,000 schoolchildren showed that the decay rate (decayed missing and filled teeth DMFT) of permanent teeth was virtually the same in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.21

In New Zealand, tooth decay statistics from 60,000 children showed that fluoridation has no significant effect on the decay rate of permanent teeth.22 23

Broad-scale studies from Canada show that tooth decay is actually lower in nonfluoridated areas.24

There is not one animal study which found fluoride in water at 1 ppm reduced tooth decay.

There are no blinded studies of humans which show a reduction in tooth decay from consuming 1 ppm artificial fluoride.25

When all published studies were examined by D. Ziegelbecker in 1981, no correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries.26

Mark Diesendorf studied the decayed, missing, and filled rate (DMFT) in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas in 8 developed countries, over a period of 30 years, and found no correlation to the amount of fluoride consumed and DMFT.27 He did find a large drop in tooth decay over that period, whether or not the community was fluoridated. That is why it is so important for scientific studies to have matched controls. With tooth decay rates dropping, the mere fact that tooth decay dropped after the addition of fluoride cannot be attributed to that single factor.

When Dr. John Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer for the Department of Health for Auckland, New Zealand and head of the fluoridation program, confirmed Diesendorf's findings, his unpopular finding was changed. He found no significant difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas (DMFT 2.7 fluoridated vs. 2.4 non-fluoridated). Colquhoun contends his reported data was manipulated so that it did show a benefit for consuming fluoride which simply did not exist.28 29 He further showed that decay was related to the educational and economic level of the parents.30 31 Finally there is now a serious question of scientific integrity in the dental research community. The DMFT rate is very subjective. When is a sticky spot really a cavity of just a spot? There is now evidence that the subjectivity of the DMFT rate has been used to prejudice data from areas where fluoridation has been discontinued (Stranraer).

Fluoride has been added to the municipal water supply of San Francisco since 1952. Fluoridationists claim that adding fluoride to the water will dramatically reduce tooth decay. Los Angeles is unfluoridated. Therefore, San Francisco should have less tooth decay than other unfluoridated California cities. The highest decay rates are seen in low income areas. Research clearly shows that many children of low income have no tooth brush.

Tooth decay is an infection of the tooth caused by the bacteria STREP MUTANS. The prevalence of tooth decay in the United States varies from one geographic area to another. It is dependent upon nutrition, parental education, oral bacteria, dental hygiene and several other factors. Consequently the DMFT rate will vary from one town to another. Comparison of decay rates must therefore take into consideration the other factors. Comparing one city to another is like a study of two rats. No meaningful results can be obtained from this kind of comparison.

Fluorosis affects more than teeth.

According to the National Research Council, 8 to 51% and sometimes as many as 80% of the children growing up in areas where drinking water contains one part per million (1 ppm) fluoride have dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is permanent damage to the enamel which consists of white or brown spots that appear on the children's teeth. The process whereby fluorosis is initiated is of interest, since we have a systemic poison which produces a visible effect on the enamel of teeth. When fluoride reaches the cells which make enamel, ameloblasts, become poisoned. As they degenerate they lay down irregular enamel. Instead of the regular hydroxyapatite, they will produce mottled, porous and thin enamel. As the poisoning worsens the enamel may even be absent. At the same time the enamel is being mottled other hard and ligament tissues are being affected as well (See #8).

Political Pressure On Scientists

The scientists, for the office of drinking water, claim they were subjected to flat out political pressure to raise the permissible level of fluoride in drinking water from the old standard of 1 to 4 mg/l. In order to do this, they had to show that there were no adverse health effects.

National Institute of Dental Research Representative warns that dental fluorosis should not be called a health effect. "I think we as a committee need to recognize that this is a departure from the conclusions reached through fifty years of Public Health Service sponsored epidemiological and clinical investigations. I, too, feel that moderate and severe dental fluorosis are to be avoided, but am less certain that we should invert history to accomplish that end." (Memo from John Small, NIDR to Jay Shapiro, Chairman of Surgeon General's Expert Committee, June 1, 1983)

Political Pressure Contradicts HEW

The statements of Mr. Small are in direct contradiction to the statements of the Department of Health Education and Welfare made in 1970 by Frank McClure when fluorosis was originally classified.

"All enamel surfaces of the teeth are affected, and surfaces subject to attrition show marked wear. Brown stain is frequently a disfiguring feature."

"All enamel surfaces are affected and hypoplasia is so marked that the general form of the tooth may be affected. The major diagnostic sign of this classification is the discrete or confluent pitting. Brown stains are widespread and teeth often present a corroded-like appearance." 32

The EPA Rewrote History

In response to the pressure the EPA rewrote history and stated ". . .there is no adequate evidence of chipping, cracking or loss of enamel associated with dental fluorosis." 33 The administration then reclassified fluorosis to be a cosmetic defect rather than an adverse health effect.

Fluoridation is very expensive.

The health effects of fluorosis alone are estimated to cost Californian's $900 million a year. Hip fractures will add several million more dollars to the cost of health care while not even considering the pain, suffering and death. There are better methods of disposing of fluoride and there are better methods available today for preventing tooth decay.

Fluoride is a major world wide pollutant. It has poisoned livestock and humans as well as lakes and streams of this nation. Last year alone the municipalities around San Francisco Bay dumped more than 90,000 pounds of fluoride in the bay in tap water run off. Adding literally hundreds of tons of fluoride to the nations water ways has contaminated the entire ecology of our country and eventually the planet. It is simply a gross mistake.


Scientific Fraud

Throughout this paper I presented the evidence I believe clearly indicates that scientific fraud has been employed in order to support the disposal of this toxic substance in public water supplies. There is no question that fluoride is a toxic substance which readily enters the body and has a wide range of systemic effects. There are real questions of whether or not it has any benefit in reducing tooth decay.
Safety First

First and foremost is the issue of safety. Since some people drink excessive amounts of water the extreme example must be used in the calculation of drinking water safety. The average child cannot be used. Furthermore, it is known that tooth decay will not result unless the diet is rich in refined foods and carbohydrates.34 35 What is of even greater concern is the daily consumption of a known toxic substance for which there is no proof of safety.
Political Pressure From Manufacturers

On numerous occasions, those responsible for the safety of our water have bowed to political pressure and abdicated that responsibility. The majority of developed nations have chosen to not fluoridate their water supply. Fluoride is a toxic waste by-product of phosphate fertilizer production and aluminum manufacturing. Consequently, the United States is one of the major producers of this hazardous waste and, it would be more costly to dispose as a hazardous waste.These companies have found it far cheaper to support "scientific research" into the benefits of consuming hazardous waste and sell it to the cities as a health product than to dispose of this material properly.
Research Funds Are Diverted

When scientific research results that do not support the use of fluoride are reported, the research funds are immediately withdrawn and no further report is issue . For example, when Dr. Feltmans conducted a study of prenatal and postnatal fluoride consumption which was financed by a US PHS grant. His preliminary findings not only failed to confirm the fluoridation thesis but indicated probable ill effects to a significant percentage of the population because of allergy to fluorides.36 The funds to continue the study were immediately withdrawn. That is what I mean when I speak of the manipulation of science.
Fluoride Will Not Pass

Our research institutions have become prostituted by the huge financial grants furnished by companies with but one goal. Our political system is enslaved by their addiction to the PAC funds available from industries with excess hazardous waste. We owe ourselves more then to become the willing puppets of these industrial waste generators. We must scientifically research very carefully the unusual claim about any toxic material be added to everyone's daily diet. We must be certain not only of its benefits but also for its absolute safety for everyone. If a product fails to pass the minimum NTP specification for biocompatibility tests then I for one, will refuse to recommend that it be used. FLUORIDE WILL NOT PASS. It is,according to the U.S. NTP an equivocal carcinogen. Other research finds it clearly a carcinogen. "In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical." 37 I urge you to consider carefully the effect our decision will have on future generations.

Tooth decay is preventable with current technology. Cancer, hip fracture, and osteoporosis are not.

(Additional references are available upon request.)

1. Foulkes, R.G. "Fluoridation: Fraud of the Century" Health Natural p.8, June-July, 1994
2. University of Chicago Medical Center July 31, 1993 reported by CNN
3. deaths and 5 injuries from 1 ppm fluoride injuring kidney dialysis patients.
4. Maury Massler and Isaac Schour Journal of the American Dental Association 44:156-165 (1952)
5. Freni SC, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 42:109-121, 1994
6. Jolly, S.S. et al. "Endemic Fluorosis in Punjab" Fluoride, Vol. 6,4-18 (1973)
7. Jacqmin-Gadda, H. et al. Fluorine Concentrations in Drinking Water and Fractures in the Elderly JAMA Vol. 273, No. 10 March 8, 1995
8. J. A. Albright, "The Effect of Fluoride on the Mechanical Properties of Bone," Transactions of the Annual Meeting of the Orthopedics Research Society, pp. 3, 98. (1978)
9. Dr. Jennifer Jowsey, Comments made at the 1977 National Convention of the American Association of the Advancement of Science in Denver, Colorado.
10. J. C. Robins and J. L. Ambrus, "Studies on Osteoporosis IX. Effect of Fluoride on Steroid Induced Osteoporosis," Research Communications inb Chemical Pathology and Pharmacology, Volume 37, No. 3, pp. 453-461 (1982)
11. A. F. Aksyuk and G. V. Bulychev, "Physiological Effects of Small Amounts of Fluoride on the Organism," Gigiena i Sanitariya, Volume 27, No. 12, pp. 7-10 (1962)
12. Hip Fracture rates related to Fluoridated water Journal of the American Medical Association 264(4):500-502 1990
13. Fluoride treatment of osteoporosis causes bone fractures New England Journal of Medicine 322:802-809 1990
14. F. J. McClure (Fluoride in the American Diet) Public Health Reps., volume 64, pp.1061 (1949)
15. H. Spencer et al Subject (Fluoridation in Chicago Area) The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 22, pp. 381 (1969)
16. Dr. Linda Randolph "The Study of Fluoride Intake in New York Residents" 12/1/88 Dept. of Health NY
17. Walker, Glen S. R. Fluoridation Poison on Tap Magenta Press Pty. Ltd. 40 Geddes Street Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 1982
18. L. H. Fountain Congressional Hearings "The National Cancer Program (part 2.- Fluoridation of Public Drinking Water)", 95th Congress first session October 12, 1977
19. J. D. Erickson, "Mortality in Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non- fluoridated Water Supplies," New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 298, 1112-1116 (1978)
20. Battelle Research Institute Primary Research Data issued February 23, 1989
21. Marcus, W Chemical and Engineering News 1990
22. Yiamouyiannis, J "NIDR study shows no relationship between fluoridation and tooth decay rate" American Laboratory 5/89
23. Colquhoun, J. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41 1985
24. Colquhoun, J. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41 1985
25. Gray, A.S Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 53(10): 753-755 1987
26. Dr. John Yiamouyiannis statement both in his book (Fluoride the Aging Factor" pub Health Action Press 2nd ed 1986 )and during debates has not been challenged by the ADA or others
27. Ziegelbecker D. Fluoride 14; 123-128 1981
28. Diesendorf M. Nature Vol. 322 10 July 1986
29. Op cit.
30. op cit.
31. Colquhoun J. Fluoride Vol. 23 #3 July 90
32. Colquhoun J. Community Health Studies 11:85-90 1987
33. McClure, Frank Water Fluoridation, The Search and the Victory HEW 1970
34. EPA FED REG VOL. 50, #220, THURSDAY NOV. 14, 1985
35. Otomi Indians in Mexico have no cavities New York State Dental Journal 24:63 1958
36. Bedouins in Israel suffer little decay Journal of Dental Research 47:407 1968
37. Feltman R., Kosel, G., Prenatal and Postnatal ingestion of Fluorides - - Fourteen years of investigation - Final Report Journal of Dental Medicine 16:190 Oct. 1961
38. Dean Burk Chief Chemist Emeritus U.S. National cancer Institute.

Facts About Fluoride

Fluoride, a corrosive chemical more poisonous than lead, is added to more than 60 percent of U.S. water supplies annually. This number is said to be on the increase, as community residents--like NSP"s own neighboring Salt Lake county--vote to have their water fluoridated.

"Fluoridation ... is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has."

-- Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D.
[Microbiology], Nobel Prize Winner

Sodium fluoride was the kind of fluoride originally added to public water supplies, but this is no longer the case. While it is difficult to fathom why people would willingly add a substance once sold as rat poison to their drinking water, sodium fluoride still might be preferable to the kinds of fluoride dumped into public water supplies today--because sodium fluoride is the only form of fluoride that has undergone thorough testing, out-dated though the data may be. Most fluoridated water supplies in the U.S. are treated with more caustic kinds of fluoride, such as fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride. These compounds are waste products supplied by major corporations of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Anti-fluoride groups believe these corporations save millions of dollars, because it would cost them many times more to dispose of such hazardous materials properly than it does to unleash them on the public.

As stated above, early researchers found that the presence of 1.0 ppm presented no danger of dental fluorosis. They also discovered any dosage over 2.0 ppm was unsafe and likely to give rise to the mottled-teeth condition. Were it possible to keep fluoride levels at the 1.0 ppm level, people would at least be able to avoid the fluorosis problem. However, studies show that the average fluoridated water supply in the U.S. already exceeds this level by double.

This danger is further complicated by the fact that many common foods (such as popular soft drinks) already contain fluoride. Thus, people living in fluoridated areas who choose to consume such foods will most likely take in far more fluoride than the amount deemed safe by scientific estimates. When common breakfast cereals can contain as much as 10.0 ppm, it is easy to see how quickly the average person can "overdose" on fluoride.

In a society literally plagued with incurable diseases whose causes are virtually unknown to medical "experts," is it so incredible that some people are concerned about the intake of even the smallest amount of corrosive poison?

Over 2,000 Professionals Call for an End to Fluoridation of Drinking Water

Water Supply Statistics 2006

U.S. Population Receiving Fluoridated Water1
• 184,028,038

U.S. Population served by Community Water Systems (C.W.S.)1
• 265,794,252

U.S. Population2
• 299,398,484

"In 2006, 69.2% of the U.S. population served by community water systems received optimally fluoridated water (Table 1), an increase from 62.1% in 1992, and from 65.0% in 2000 (Table 2)... Overall, approximately 184 million persons served by community water systems received fluoridated water; of that number, approximately 8 million persons received water with sufficient naturally occurring fluoride concentrations..."

TABLE 1. Estimated number and percentage of persons served by
community water systems who received optimally fluoridated water,*
by state/area - United States, 2006

The European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General requested the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) to "critically review any information that has become available in the public domain on the hazard profile and epidemiological evidence of adverse and/or beneficial health effects of fluoride and to assess the health risks that may be associated with the use of the most common drinking water fluoridation agents (e.g. silicofluorides)."

The deadline for the FIRST Call for Information was April 26. In response to 97 comments received in the first round, the "Working Mandate on Fluoridation" has been revised and a new call for information has been issued.

Fluoride is an extremely toxic substance. People don't realize just how bad it is. It's the active ingredient in some types of rat poison!

At the same time, the game some of these scientists play with us is that they do their testing with calcium fluoride. This is where the initial "fluoride is good for your teeth" research came from. Calcium fluoride is about as harmless as table salt. However, what they dump into municipal drinking water is sodium fluoride, a by-product of the smokestack scrubbers of fertilizer plants! Our taxes go to pay to have toxic waste put in our drinking water! Fluoride loves to bind with calcium, and this is how people get mottled teeth (and bones), which make the bone structure more brittle and weakens them. It's the classic bait-and-switch. Fluoride is not far off from mercury and lead in toxicity to the human body (and mercury is not far off from plutonium). Fluoride disrupts many processes on the cellular level and mineralizes the pituitary gland.

Wealth of research on fluoride...

For more detail on other threats on our lives see my other related posts....

Does it feel like you are on the extermination list yet?


  1. Steve Berke on April 9, 2018 at 6:47 PM

    I think this How to remove Fluoride from water will fully complement your article.

    I enjoyed reading your article :) PLease continue publishing helpful topics like this. Regards, from CWR, a company whose into selling water filtration systems that remove fluoride.