South Bay Activists Threaten to Sue over Water Fluoridation

Seven decades since American cities began fluoridating public water supplies to prevent tooth decay, the South Bay remains something of a holdout. It’s the largest metropolitan region in the nation to not fluoridate its water.

That’s about to change, but not without some pushback. Activists have threatened to sue the Santa Clara Valley Water District to prevent it from adding the mineral, which it planned to start doing this December.

The plaintiffs, groups called Safe Pure Water and Healthy Alternatives to Pesticides, plan to protest fluoridation at a water district meeting Tuesday night.

“Water district officials should stick to the agency’s legal charter and not masquerade as dentists prescribing fluoride to patients they have never even met,” said Brandi Madison, the group’s spokeswoman.

Two-thirds of the country drinks tap water treated with the chemical, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century.

Although fluoridation is common, it has never been universally accepted. Detractors criticize the practice of adding it to the public tap as mass medication. Others take issue with the chemical itself, which they see as an environmental pollutant. A 2015 study linked fluoride with the prevalence of attention deficit disorders in the U.S.

Public health officials, however, say fluoridation is a boon for low-income communities who are unable to afford regular dental care.

Santa Clara Valley’s water district, which provides wholesale drinking water for 1.8 million people, debated the issue for years before deciding to jump on board with the other 75 percent of the country.

Marty Grimes, a spokesman for the district, said the agency has been raising money with help from local nonprofits. The Santa Clara County Health Trust donated $1 million for the cause, with another $900,000 coming from the First 5 California and $500,000 from the California Dental Association Foundation.

The district has created a landing page—which you can find here—about fluoridation, which includes a list of frequently asked questions.

Jennifer Wadsworth is a staff writer for San Jose Inside and Metro Newspaper. Email tips to [email protected] or follow her on Twitter at @jennwadsworth.

64 Comments

  1. > Public health officials, however, say fluoridation is a boon for low-income communities who are unable to afford regular dental care.

    Do people who live in “low-income communities” have free will, or are they just livestock to be tended by public health officials?

    If they don’t have free will, why do we allow them to vote? Why don’t we just assign health officials to cast their votes for them?

    • Fluoridation harms poor children more than others.
      Celebrated Civil Rights and Human Rights icon and former U.S. Ambassador Andrew J. Young has sent a strong letter to Georgia leadership calling for hearings to investigate the continued and harmful practice of water fluoridation.
      In his letter he asks why the process of adding fluoridation chemicals to the water supply continues to take place despite the proven science on its dangers to the public.
      This is a Civil Rights issue
      Ambassador Young is firm in his request as he states: “I am calling for a repeal of Georgia’s fluoridation law, immediately.”
      He further asks, “Are we sacrificing the health and safety of our communities simply because dentists don’t want to be embarrassed, or sued?”

      • jwillie6 – Provide specific, legitimate scientific citations and quotes from studies to support your claim that “fluoridation harms poor children more than others”. A letter from a fluoridation opponent (FO) does not constitute proof of anything except their strong biases. As has been seen every time an actual source paper has been quoted in context, the FOs have distorted the actual conclusions of the paper to fit their agenda. The overwhelming majority of evidence supports the conclusion that community water fluoridation actually helps poor children more than others.

        http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/442713 – The caries decline is a significant achievement brought about by numerous public health measures, such as community water fluoridation, improved oral hygiene including widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste, and better disease management, along with improved living conditions

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550501 – Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12474623 – This paper argues that water fluoridation is still needed because it is the most effective and practical method of reducing the SES-based disparities in the burden of dental caries.

        • > The overwhelming majority of evidence supports the conclusion that community water fluoridation actually helps poor children more than others.

          Looks to me like you’re confounding “social justice” with science.

          I put this in the same category of mindless goal-seeking political activism that tries to prove the reality of man caused global warming by citing polls of scientists.

          Scientists don’t discover truth by doing polls; they do scientific experiments.

          • sjoutsidethebubble – It is extremely difficult to figure out what you mean. Social justice is not in any way science. However, science is an extremely effective method to determine:
            a) the options available to implement possible social justice programs
            b) the consequences of implementing specific social justice programs

            Specifically, over 70 years of science has demonstrated that community water fluoridation is a safe and effective method for reducing dental decay in a population. Those are the facts.

            What you and others do (or don’t do) with those scientific facts is part of social justice, public health, or whatever you wish to call it.

            If you and others choose no fluoridation, the scientific evidence suggests that overall there will be more dental decay in the population. Choosing to ignore all the evidence that supports that conclusion will not change the outcome. Claiming the supporting evidence does not exist, or that it is not accurate or legitimate, or that the conclusions of nearly all experts are mistaken will not change the outcome.

      • “Fluoridation harms poor children more than others.” WOW! Please explain to us how the flouride knows how to distinguish poor children’s teeth from middle class or wealthy children’s teeth?

    • It is immoral and unethical to force fluoride or any chemical or drug on all citizens without their consent.
      A doctor or dentist cannot force that on ANYONE. They would lose their license to practice if they did.

      It should be illegal for the government to force it on EVERYONE without consent.
      Use as much fluoride in your own glass of water as you like. Just leave the rest of us out of being forced to consume it. It must be a matter of choice and informed consent.
      We all deserve that.

      • James Reeves – Your claim that fluoridation is a medication is nothing more than your strongly biased opinion. You have never provided any evidence to support that claim, which of course is impossible. Fluoridation is a water treatment process implemented, like all other water treatment processes, to protect and improve the health of citizens. The proven benefits of all water treatment processes far outweigh any risks. No one is forcing you to consume fluoridated water – you have complete freedom to find other sources or remove fluoride ions (or other chemicals) from your tap water.

        If fluoridated water was a medication how would it be possible for a child to walk into any store and purchase bottles of fluoridated water – no prescription or adult supervision required?

        The FDA regulates bottled water. If there were any health risks from fluoridated water explain why no prescriptions are required to purchase cases of bottled water that contains the same or higher levels of fluoride ions as are found in optimally fluoridated water? Why are there no health warnings on the bottles? If there were problems controlling doses of fluoride ions in bottled water, there would be warnings all over the bottle to call poison control if you accidently consumed a dangerous number of bottles.

        The reason there are no such fluoride warnings on bottled water, and the reason there is no concern about drinking optimally fluoridated water is that In order to consume harmful levels of fluoride ions, one would need to consume dangerous, probably lethal amounts of water.

        • Deaths occurred (3 people) in earlier days during dialysis treatment at University of Chicago Hospitals (confirmed by CDC). Specialists now ban the use of any water containing fluoride with this treatment.

          50% of all fluoride consumed accumulates in the body. The kidneys try to flush the remainder out of the body if it can. Anyone with weak kidneys (prediabetics, diabetics, elderly, etc.) would be well advised to check with their M.D. (not their dentist) about avoiding consuming any fluoride.

          • Three people died, allegedly from fluoridated water, out of the hundreds of millions of people who consume it every day across America and you call this PROOF that it is dangerous?

          • James Reeves – You posted this same irrelevant story three times in the same comment section – are you just trying to demonstrate your memory loss?

            The deaths to which you refer were due to a malfunction of equipment, not fluoridated water. The fact that you attempt to use these tragic events as an argument against fluoridation is completely unconscionable – but then that does not matter to fluoridation opponents who try to “adjust” any situation to fit their agenda.

            You have not provided any evidence to support any of your unsupportable opinions.

        • A 2015 study from England’s University of Kent found that drinking water with added fluoride can wreck your thyroid, and lead to weight gain and depression. When researchers

          Fluoridation is now reported to cause diabetes.

          Why is diabetes a growing epidemic in the United States (74% fluoridated)? Incidence rates have nearly quadrupled in the past 32 years and show no signs of stopping.

          Read this recent article, “Fluoride consumption linked to diabetes,” from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, published in the “Journal of Water and Health” and “Endocrine Today.”
          http://newswise.com/articles/fluoride-consumption-linked-to-diabetes-using-mathematical-
          models

          • James Reeves – Provide specific quotes from that paper that prove your claim that “added fluoride can wreck your thyroid…” The conclusions of that paper in no way prove that claim.

            If you had read (or understood) the Fluegge’s diabetes paper, you would realize that (a) it was a poor study with conflicting and improbable conclusions, and (b) if the study could be believed, it actually concluded that “fluorosilicic acid [used in over 70% of treatment plants] was significantly and robustly associated with decreases in incidence and prevalence of diabetes.”

    • sjoutsidethebubble – Exactly what is the point of your comment? Are you advocating for the freedom of individuals to experience increased dental decay? Fluoridation opponents have a rather distorted perception of public health.

      • > Are you advocating for the freedom of individuals to experience increased dental decay?

        Yes. I have communicated successfully.

        By the way, I also advocate for the freedom of individuals to experience decreased dental decay, too.

        • sjoutsidethebubble – OK, explain exactly what you mean in the context of public water treatment. All water treatment methods are implemented to improve and protect the health of individuals who drink the water.

          What exactly gives you the right to deny any part of the water treatment process and the benefits associated with disinfection, fluoridation, pH adjustment, corrosion control and coagulation/flocculation to anyone based on their opinions of what they personally prefer?

          Those who do not like to drink residual disinfectants, disinfection byproducts, fluoride ions, or any other chemicals which remain in the treated water have full freedom to find other sources of water or take whatever steps they desire to remove whatever chemicals they choose not to ingest.

          Levels of all residual chemicals in treated water are carefully regulated to be safe. The proven benefits of all water treatment processes far outweigh any risks.

          • > What exactly gives you the right to deny any part of the water treatment process and the benefits associated with disinfection, fluoridation, pH adjustment, corrosion control and coagulation/flocculation to anyone based on their opinions of what they personally prefer?

            Randy:

            You’re kind of dense. I am NOT asserting any right to deny BLAH BLAH BLAH “to anyONE based on their opinions of what they personally prefer”.

            I am asserting the right — through the democratic process of voting — to deny STATE collectives the POWER to impose INVOLUNTARY health or hygiene treatments of DUBIOUS or UNKNOWN efficacy or safety.

    • Cacao makes your teeth stronger than fluoride. I had sensitivity problems with my teeth, the dentist kept giving my sensadine to numb it. Instead I started brushing my teeth with Toms of Maine (fluoride free) dipped in Organic Cacao Powder and adding it to my coffee as well. I didn’t tell the dentist for a year (with visits every 6 months). But she complimented me on how good my teeth looked and how I didn’t didn’t get cavities. When I told her I brush my teeth with Cacao she was shocked. My sensitivity issue with my teeth is gone and my joints feel better as I believe I was developing mild arthritis. Fluoride is poison designed to slowly kill you.

  2. Mr. STO Bubble,

    Fluoridated water may already have come too late for some. I don’t think I saw more than a couple dozen teeth in the whole front row of the last Willie Nelson concert I watched.

    If we really wanted to help the (sacred) low-income community, in addition to fluoride, we should also add Antabuse and birth control pills to the water (with an “opt out for bottled water” clause, for those “welfare brooders” not already on public assistance or who have been spayed). We could then solve the problems of homelessness, chronic alcohol abuse, and skyrocketing welfare costs, as well as tooth decay.

    Of course, “sanctuary cities” would still have to devise ways to deal with those who come here with “anchor gingivitis” and the “compassion community” will have to find ways to house, feed and floss the homeless.

  3. Fluoride causes lowered IQ and ADHD in children.
    The EPA has now classified fluoride as a neurotoxin (nerve and brain poison). Also, the world’s most renowned medical journal, “LANCET,” in 2014 reported that fluoride is a neurotoxin in the same category as mercury, lead and arsenic.

    Fluoridation causes enamel damage (dental fluorosis) in 41% of all children (CDC data) and has also been shown to lower IQ in children with 50 research studies. Now it has been proven to cause ADHD, as reported in the “Journal of Environmental Health” (by Malin & Till, 2015).

    A 2015 study from England’s University of Kent found that drinking water with added fluoride can wreck your thyroid, and lead to weight gain and depression.

    • James Reeves – You have made the same claims over and over recently, yet you can provide no quotes from any referenced papers which prove your claims that fluoride ions at levels found in optimally fluoridated water:
      (1) “causes lowered IQ” – the 2012 Harvard IQ study by Choi et al.,
      (2) “is a neurotoxin” – the 2014 Grandjean,Landrigan – Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity paper ,
      (3) “causes enamel damage in 41% of all children” – the CDC fluorosis data,
      (4) “has been proven to cause ADHD” – the 2015 Malin, Till ADHD study
      (5) “can wreck your thyroid” – the 2015 Peckham, et al. hypothyroidism study.
      (6) “is now reported to cause diabetes” – the 2016 K. Fluegge study, Community water fluoridation predicts increase in age-adjusted incidence and prevalence of diabetes in 22 states from 2005 and 2010.
      (7) “Fluoride is the only drug on the market not approved by the FDA because it was grandfathered in as a rat poison and roach poison.”

      If you had actually read the papers, you would realize that none of the conclusions even came close to supporting your claims. At best the authors of #s 1,2,4&5 suggest nothing more than possible correlations. If you can provide the exact quotes to support your claims, there will be something to discuss – I certainly have seen no such quotes or conclusions. If you had read (or understood) the Fluegge’s diabetes paper (#6) you would realize that (a) it was a poor study with conflicting and improbable conclusions, and (b) if the study could be believed, it actually concluded that “fluorosilicic acid [used in over 70% of treatment plants] was significantly and robustly associated with decreases in incidence and prevalence of diabetes.”

      • Deaths occurred (3 people) in earlier days during dialysis treatment at University of Chicago Hospitals (confirmed by CDC). Specialists now ban the use of any water containing fluoride with this treatment.

        50% of all fluoride consumed accumulates in the body. The kidneys try to flush the remainder out of the body if it can. Anyone with weak kidneys (prediabetics, diabetics, elderly, etc.) would be well advised to check with their M.D. (not their dentist) about avoiding consuming any fluoride.

        • James Reeves – Three postings of the same irrelevant story in the same comment section – really?

          The deaths to which you refer were due to a malfunction of equipment, not fluoridated water. The fact that you attempt to use these tragic events as an argument against fluoridation is completely unconscionable – but then that does not matter to fluoridation opponents who try to “adjust” any situation to fit their agenda.

          You have not provided any evidence to support any of your unsupportable opinions.

  4. CDC 2011/2012 statistics reveal low-income children’s tooth decay rates are increasing substantially – despite record numbers of children served fluoride from water, foods, dental products andmedicines causing an overall alarming surge in fluoride-overdose symptoms – dental fluorosis (discolored teeth), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)
    Decay rates for children, living 100% below the Federal Poverty Level, are 40% in three- to five-year-olds; 69% in six- to nine-year-olds; and 74% in 13-15 year-olds, based on Federal data (2011/2012 NHANES) to be presented at an American Public Health Association Meeting 11/2/16).
    Previous cavity rates (NHANES III 1988-1994) for similar children’s primary teeth were much lower – 30% of 2-5 year-olds; 42% of 6-12 year-olds and 34% of 15-18 year-olds’ permanent teeth.
    “Claims that poor children need fluoride are without merit or evidence,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. “It’s the dental care delivery system that needs fixing. Low-income Americans need dental care not fluoride.”
    In fact, dental Expenses were a leading contributor to Medical Debt in 2012
    Along with low-income children’s rampant cavities, all children’s dental fluorosis rates surged, according to CDC’s 2011-2012 NHANES survey. Fifty-eight percent of all children (6-19 year olds) now have fluorosis, with a staggering 21% of children displaying moderate fluorosis on at least two teeth. Black children are most afflicted.
    “Fluorosis is the outward sign of fluoride toxicity,” says Beeber.
    “By focusing on fluoridation instead of diet and dentist-access, organized dentistry allowed a national dental health crisis to occur on its watch and created a new one – dental fluorosis,” says dentist David Kennedy, past-president of IAOMT (International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology). “It’s reckless to allow organized dentistry to vouch for fluoride safety. Adverse health effects, outside of the oral cavity from ingested fluoride, are not within the purview of dentistry, according to the California Board of Dental Examiners.”
    Claims that stopping fluoridation would raise tooth decay rates are disproved by severalstudies. Also, Poughkeepsie NY stopped fluoridation in 2008. Third-graders cavity rates declined steadily – 61% in 2013; 51% in June 2014; 45% in October 2014; and 31% in 2015, according to NYU researchers.
    Research shows fluoride ingestion is more likely to cause fluorosis than prevent a cavity, according to Fluoride Action Network
    Contact: David Kennedy, DDS [email protected] 800-728-3833
    Paul Beeber, JD [email protected]
    http://www.FluorideAction.Net
    To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fluoridation-useless-for-low-income-children-federal-data-shows-300319933.html

    • John Teagle – You provide numbers completely out of context – and cite a propaganda news release paid for by an anti-F group. Every extracted number has been distorted and edited to fit the anti-F agenda. Go to the primary sources for legitimate scientific conclusions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
      ~> 2016 – Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Fluoridation Report: “Water fluoridation within the current recommended range in Australia (0.6 to 1.1 mg/L) is effective in reducing the occurrence and severity of tooth decay in children, adolescents and adults. In Australia, water fluoridation within this range can be associated with an increase in dental fluorosis. This is often not readily visible and it has no effect on the function of teeth. There is no evidence that water fluoridation within the current Australian range is associated with any adverse health effects.”
      ~>New international review supports community water fluoridation as an effective and safe dental health promotion measure [Peter Howat, et al. – Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2015, 26, 1-3]
      Conclusions: Strong evidence supports the safety and efficacy of CWF. The benefits are most pronounced for low SES groups
      ~> Effectiveness of water fluoridation in caries reduction in a remote Indigenous community in Far North Queensland [Johnson NW, et al. – Aust Dent J. 2014 Sep;59(3):366-71]
      Conclusions: There has been considerable improvement in child dental health in the NPA over the past 6-7 years. In light of continued poor diet and oral hygiene, water fluoridation is the most likely explanation.
      ~> Fluoridation and social equity [Burt BA.- J Public Health Dent. 2002 Fall;62(4):195-200]
      Within the social context of the United States, water fluoridation is probably the most significant step we can take toward reducing the disparities in dental caries. It therefore should remain as a public health priority.

      • Deaths occurred (3 people) in earlier days during dialysis treatment at University of Chicago Hospitals (confirmed by CDC). Specialists now ban the use of any water containing fluoride with this treatment.

        50% of all fluoride consumed accumulates in the body. The kidneys try to flush the remainder out of the body if it can. Anyone with weak kidneys (prediabetics, diabetics, elderly, etc.) would be well advised to check with their M.D. (not their dentist) about avoiding consuming any fluoride.

        • James Reeves – You perfectly demonstrated (three times) how fluoridation opponents use irrelevant scare tactics to try and “prove” their opinions?

          The three deaths to which you refer were due to a malfunction of equipment, not fluoridated water. The fact that you attempt to use these tragic events as an argument against fluoridation is completely unconscionable – but then that does not matter to fluoridation opponents who try to “adjust” any situation to fit their agenda.

          You have not provided any evidence to support any of your unsupportable opinions.

        • Mr. Reeves . . dialysis standards have changed since the days that plain tap water was used. These standards of care which protect current renal failure patients have nothing whatsoever to do with a reasonable discussion of community water fluoridation.

          I hope it is obvious to all readers how truly mistaken you are in raising this as one of the 100+ “reasons” you and other opponents employ.

  5. Fluoride is highly toxic and a cumulative poison, like lead, arsenic, and mercury. I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.
    https://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/

    It is unlikely to just be a coincidence that the US, Australia, and Ireland, which have had high rates of forced-fluoridation for decades, also have high rates of joint problems, and poor health outcomes in general.

    • Dan Germouse – I have asked many fluoridation opponents (FOs) how much exposure to chloroform and other disinfection byproducts they think is safe? So far, not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.

      In addition to disinfection byproducts found in disinfected water, a variety of toxic drinking water treatment chemicals can be added to treat drinking water. These include ammonium sulfate, calcium hydroxide, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid. These chemicals that are dumped into the water are not pharmacy-grade.

      Fluoridation opponents (FOs) don’t seem to understand that many water treatment chemicals are poisonous in the forms added to water – it would not be advisable to drink a glass of sodium hypochlorite (bleach), sodium hydroxide (drain cleaner), hydrochloric acid or hydrofluorosilicate or any of the other chemicals routinely used to treat water. The process of disinfection also creates toxic disinfection byproducts.

      Does anyone who dislikes ingesting any or all of these added chemicals – or the disinfection byproducts that are created – have the right to demand the treatment practice be halted because of their self-inflicted fears?

      Of course not, but they are free to choose to take measures to remove any chemicals they decide they dislike.

      • Some disinfectant is needed to make the water safe to drink. The least harmful disinfectant(s) should be used. But fluoride is not added for that purpose. It is allegedly added as a medical treatment with unseen, unknown patients. Why not add asperin? How about wine? Some might benefit. Others would be harmed. It is not the proper function of a public water system to medicate the masses. Unnecessary chemicals can and do harm people, pets and the environment. Stop electing intellectual deadbeats to public office.

        • Wow777 – There is no legitimate reason to call fluoridation any form of medication. There is no supporting evidence. That classification is nothing more than an opinion. I could come up with an equally ridiculous opinion that it is immoral to poison the millions of “unseen, unknown” subjects who drink tap water with residual disinfectants and those toxic disinfection byproducts which are created. It is not the proper function of a public water system to poison the masses with those harmful chemicals.

          • Nonsense, the Obama administration has successfully carried out the mass poisoning of the city of Flint Michigan.
            No additives are necessary just let them drink what comes out of the river, save’s a lot of government money too!

          • Water quality here has gotten so bad it kills my houseplants and tropical fish on contact!

  6. Hmmmmmmmmmm?
    Why would dentist want to prevent cavities by putting fluoride in the water?
    Think of the money they will lose!

    Why wouldn’t the government want to kill us off early by poisoning the water?
    Think of the social security money they will save, and estate tax they will collect!

    Now who do you trust?

  7. sjoutsidethebubble – What is your opinion of the other water treatment processes — drinking water disinfection which creates toxic disinfection byproducts, pH adjustment, corrosion control and coagulation/flocculation — which all involve adding various chemicals (most of which are poisonous) to the water?

    What about my free will? If I disliked drinking disinfection byproducts because they might increase my risk of getting cancer, particularly if I drank lots of water, would I have the right to insist that disinfection be halted? According to your apparent logic, everyone should have the freedom to treat their own water so they can ingest exactly the contaminants they choose.

    • > According to your apparent logic, everyone should have the freedom to treat their own water so they can ingest exactly the contaminants they choose.

      EXACTLY!

      We’re on the same page.

      Why should people be forced to ingest the contaminants that you want them to ingest?. How do we know that you know everything there is to know about water quality? Did you finish first in your water purity class?

      I’ll take my water contamination advice from the guy who got the higher grade, and correctly answered the test questions that you got wrong.

      • sjoutsidethebubble – We are definitely NOT on the same page. I am just trying to understand and expose your illogical position. Apparently, by your logic, everyone should be responsible for their own water treatment. That way everyone can select exactly which chemicals they wish to add to their water, which ones they wish to remove, and which processes they wish to employ to make their water drinkable.

        You are certainly free to promote that agenda, but to selectively choose a chemical (like fluorine) that you personally dislike and demand that fluoridation not be implemented – while all other treatment methods remain unchallenged is absurd.

        • > Apparently, by your logic, everyone should be responsible for their own water treatment. That way everyone can select exactly which chemicals they wish to add to their water, which ones they wish to remove, and which processes they wish to employ to make their water drinkable.

          Yes! Exactly!

          Why do you call it “illogical”? You have captured the logic exactly!

          Go to the supermarket sometime and you will see that consumers can choose from fifteen different brands of water. People can get Vichy water, Evian, Alhambra, Safeway water, etc. etc.. You can even get water from Fiji if you want water from Fiji. (Although I have been told that Fiji water isn’t really from Fiji).

          If water is dangerous and needs to be treated, by all means, inform the public: “Our water is crap and you might die or get cavities if you drink it.”

          “We recommend that you treat our water with radioactive, industrial strength, elemental fluorine before drinking or brushing your teeth.. It is suggested that you wear a full containment hazmat suit with rebreather when treating your water.”

          • SJOutsidetheBubble – OK you choose no water treatment processes – everyone for themselves. I choose public treated water using proven methods of providing safe water to the public to protect health.

    • tomtolosky – OK, you promote a video featuring an outlier dentist who does not understand the difference between fluoride levels in a tube of toothpaste and a glass of water. That’s really scary.

      His argument – A tube of toothpaste that contains warnings not to swallow PROVES optimally fluoridated water is dangerous. While it is possible to consume sufficient toothpaste to cause harm because of the concentrated levels of fluoride ions, it is impossible to consume harmful levels of fluoride ions by drinking optimally fluoridated water.

      Fluoridated toothpaste typically contains 1,000 to 1,500 ppm fluoride ions compared to 0.7 ppm fluoride ions in optimally fluoridated drinking water.

      You would have to drink over a thousand gallons of fluoridated water to get a poisonous dose of fluoride ions – you would be long dead of water toxicity.
      http://www.oralanswers.com/is-there-more-fluoride-in-a-pea-sized-amount-of-toothpaste-or-a-liter-of-water/

      Also, bottled water is regulated by the FDA, and anyone, even a child, can purchase as many bottles of fluoridated water as they wish without a prescription. There are no health warnings on any bottles of fluoridated water or any instructions to call poison control for fluoride-toxicity if too many bottles of water are consumed.

      You have poisoned your mind against fluoridation, but there is no science to support your self-inflicted fears.

      • > Also, bottled water is regulated by the FDA, and anyone, even a child, can purchase as many bottles of fluoridated water as they wish without a prescription.

        THEREFORE . . . . it is not necessary to put fluoride in the communal drinking water supply.

        The wonderful technology of bottled fluoridated water allows EVERYONE to be happy. Those who WANT fluoride in their water can drink fluoridated bottled water. Those who DON’T WANT fluoride in their water can drink pure, unadulterated water from the NON-FLUORIDATED public water supply.

        Fluoride is an “additive”. Those who WANT the additive can add the additive. THEIR choice. Are you against HAPPINESS, Mr. Johnson?

  8. Our doctor prescribed fluoride drops for our baby when she was six months old. She told us that because I was breastfeeding and the baby wasn’t getting any fluoride from the area’s water, my baby would need the fluoride to prevent future tooth decay. Each time I went to give her the drops, I stopped. It just felt wrong. Here was my baby, born full term, healthy delivery, and no presenting issues. Yet, here I was blindly following the instructions to give this little six month old baby, fluoride in prescription form in order to fend off future dental decay?

    I decided not to. Yep. Call me crazy. I rolled the dice. No to unnecessary “drops”.

    She is now 13 with a mouth full of healthy teeth and not one cavity. Her hygienist and dentist tell her every six months that it is her good habits that are making the difference.

    Go figure.

    I say no to fluorinated water. If you want to add fluoride to your child’s diet, you can. There are those “drops”.

  9. Fluoride is 87% cumulative in children and 50% cumulative in adults. It is highly embrittling to bone and connective tissue, ie, we tear and fracture instead of stretch and bounce.
    Fluoridated water doubled the hip fracture rate for women at age 75 who drank fluoridated water through their peri-menopause, a window of increased fluoride uptake into bone. (JAMA August 12, 1992 p. 3 graph)
    Caffeine doubles the bioavailability of the fluoride in your coffee, tea, or soda, ie, the amount of fluoride that hits the bloodstream is double that of a glass of fluoridated water.
    Charcoal filters cannot remove fluoride from tap water.
    Ask if fluoride enriches uranium. (visit Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb)
    Ask if Dupont had 12 lawsuits to deal with in April, 1946. (visit Deepwater New Jersey Lawsuit)
    Ask if fluoridation “for baby’s teeth” was the desperate national security ploy to win lawsuits throughout the cold war.
    Ask if fluoridated water causes twice the prevalence of dental fluorosis and twice the severity of dental fluorosis for African Americans compared to white children.
    I could go on and on and on …..

    • Maureen Jones – Provide proof (specific citations and quotes from those studies) that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes harm.

      According to the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, “the committee was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effects.” Those levels are much greater than the optimal fluoridation level of 0.7 mg/L.

      The ONLY documented reasons cited by the committee for the recommendation to lower the MCL was, “Lowering the MCLG will prevent children from developing severe enamel fluorosis and will reduce the lifetime accumulation of fluoride into bone that the majority of the committee concludes is likely to put individuals at increased risk of bone fracture and possibly skeletal fluorosis, which are particular concerns for subpopulations that are prone to accumulating fluoride in their bones.”

      NO other reasons were cited! If the Committee had determined there were any other concerns (health or otherwise) with fluoride at this level (over five times the fluoride levels in optimally fluoridated water) , it would have been responsible for stating the issues of concern and recommending accordingly. It did not, and that conclusion is the same as nearly all other reviews, past and present.

      Your comments are irrelevant and/or completely fabricated.

  10. > I choose public treated water using proven methods of providing safe water to the public to protect health.

    BACK OFF, COMMIE!

    Stop choosing things for other people that they can choose for themselves.

  11. MR. JOHNSON:

    People who want fluoride on their teeth can:
    1. Use toothpaste that contains fluoride;
    2. Have fluoride applied by their dentist;
    3. Drink LOTS and LOTS of bottled water containing fluoride.
    Here is a list of brands of bottled water that contain actual, authentic, industrial grade fluoride: (Thoughtfully prepared by the International Bottled Water Association)
    http://www.bottledwater.org/fluoride
    Personally, I recommend Alhambra because they have sparkly things on their delivery trucks.

  12. > Specifically, over 70 years of science has demonstrated that community water fluoridation is a safe and effective method for reducing dental decay in a population. Those are the facts.

    Wonderful. Science knows one fact about about fluoridated water. Are there any facts that science DOESN’T know about fluoridated water?

    Despite what the global warming quacks believe, there is no such thing as “settled science”.

    There are many, many “facts” about fluoridation that are poorly understood, or are not known at all. IT’S THE NATURE OF SCIENCE. Have there, for example, been any serious studies linking water fluoridation with human fertility? “Population control” has long, long been a goal of anti-humanists.

  13. @Randy Johnson. I did not disagree with your concerns about disinfectants selected for water delvered through pipes to users. I just pointed out that some disinfectants are evidently needed to make and keep the water safe for human consumption. But fluoride is added for any entirely different reason. It done not disinfect water. It delivers chemicals to the bloodstream of each water user in hope of getting some TRICKLE DOWN benefit to some children who may not brush, floss or ever see a dentist. How about expanding dental insurance coverage instead of polluting or spiking the water without regard to the needs and vulnerabilities of the millions of unseen “patients” receiving the water?

    • Wouter Dito – Neither I nor others who support fluoridation advocate against any personal or societal methods that reduce dental decay in a population. Fluoridation opponents, based on their self-inflicted paranoia, have selfishly decided to fight one of the proven methods to reduce dental decay and associated health issues in a community.

      Fluoridation opponents must define the goals of public water treatment very carefully (with no justification for their opinions) to allege the public health benefits of disinfection, pH adjustment, corrosion control and coagulation/flocculation are different from the public health benefits of fluoridation.

      All water treatment methods, whatever their methods of action, are proven to improve and protect the health of individuals who drink the water. The proven benefits of all water treatment methods far outweigh any risks – based on decades of research.

      “We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.” – Dr. John Harris of the Department of Ethics and Social Policy at the University of Manchester, UK

  14. So I’m guessing the Santa Clara Valley has a higher degree of dental decay as opposed to “75% of the country” that adds this magical chemical to their drinking water? Before SCVWD uses our tax money to continue the scientific experiment of adding this magical chemical to cure all of us, including our water drinking pets, from the deadly disease of tooth decay maybe we should spend our money on diseases that actually pose a threat to our community. Nope, lets all get on the bandwagon to experiment with chemicals to eliminate tooth decay and leave research on eliminating cancer, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, ALS. etc, for later.

  15. Fluoridation works. It is not an experiment but a proven method. There never is proof beyond all doubt. At best we have in life is proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is so much evidence on this being safe and effective if from nothing else than the hundreds of millions of people who have fluoridated water systems. On the personal end, I grew up before it was a practice and have a mouth full of fillings and have endured a lot of pain. My kids grew up with fluoridated water in another city and have perfect teeth although they did nothing extraordinary for tooth care and weren’t passed genes for good teeth. My tooth problems have resumed since moving to the area. The government has role in public health. No one is forced to drink tap water. If you don’t trust the quality of the tap water, drink bottled water. I would like to sue the anti- crowd for my dental bills. There always are people susceptible to pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. Not all opinions are equal or valid. They should not be making public health decisions. Just because there are diseases that don’t have cures doesn’t mean that that it is appropriate to ignore applying known cures.

    • > I would like to sue the anti- crowd for my dental bills.

      I would like to sue the water fluoridators for conspiracy to contaminate my drinking water AND for being too lazy to drink bottled fluoridated water if they’re convinced it’s so wonderful.

  16. Ripper: Mandrake?
    Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
    Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
    Mandrake: Well, I can’t say I have.
    Ripper: Vodka, that’s what they drink, isn’t it? Never water?
    Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that’s what they drink, Jack, yes.
    Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
    Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can’t quite see what you’re getting at, Jack.
    Ripper: Water, that’s what I’m getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth’s surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water?
    Mandrake: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
    Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
    Mandrake: Yes.
    Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
    Mandrake: Yes.
    Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol?
    Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
    Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
    Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
    Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
    Mandrake: No, no I don’t know what it is, no.
    Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?

  17. What is Hydrofluorosilicic Acid that they want add to our drinking water? https://fluoridealert.org/issues/water/fluoridation-chemicals/
    Water Fluoridation is not a cure for tooth decay, only 1 less cavity for Fluoridated areas is not good enough to poison the whole water system. I don’t need Fluoride to shower, water my garden, wash my dishes and clothes.
    Its more economical for people that like Fluoride to use toothpaste and drink bottled water.

  18. so glad I found you, this fluoride is poison to all bodies. Please visit website: FLUORIDEALERT.ORG What can we do to help stop this, who can we call. Campbell’s mayors office was of little help, and did not call back when they said they would. They said fluoride vote was on ballot, Santa Clara water said it was not!! Got info from records dept of Santa Clara water saying fluoride in water decision was made by Santa Clara Valley Water District Board; seemingly what they thought, not investigation the harmful affects on body and mind!

Leave a Reply