Flouridated Water Hazards

Commissioners thrust into teeth of dilemma

Opponents of fluoridation have been lampooned as paranoid lunatics. In the 1964 movie "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," Gen. Jack D. Ripper explains to Peter Sellers' character how communists are using fluoridation to contaminate the bodily fluids of Americans, prompting him to order a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union. But the anti-fluoridation movement has become more than a joke in recent years. Calgary, Alberta, earlier this year stopped adding fluoride to its water in response to the same concerns raised by Oakes. Austin, Texas, is on the front lines of the fluoridation fight in the U.S., with an organization, Fluoride Free Austin, leading the effort to end the practice.

These Documents Virtually Force You to Destroy Your Health

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970's, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have completely controlled the agency's stance supporting water fluoridation.  No CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency's position.

The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC's and EPA's fluoride safety statements, which appear at odds with current scientific knowledge.

According to the Fluoride Action Network:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is part of a larger administrative structure that provides intra-agency support and resource sharing for health issues that require the input from more than one area of expertise. Other offices that share information and expertise with the CDC include the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, and the Agency for Toxic Substances.

The general assumption has been that the agency utilized a broad range of expert input to evaluate fluoride before reaching the decision to support water fluoridation. After all, since fluoride is ingested, it stands to reason it may have an impact on your whole body, not just your teeth.

Alas, a recent document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) tells a different tale.

In April, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) responded to an FOIA request asking for the names and job descriptions of all parties at the CDC who have had input into the agency's decision to support water fluoridation.

As it turns out, ever since the mid-1970's, when fluoridation activities transferred from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to the CDC under the directorship of William Bock, dental health professionals have been the sole body health expert outside the Oral Health Division. Apparently, no toxicologist has ever been directly involved in the decision process; nor any minority health professionals, or experts on internal medicine or diabetes, for example.

This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation?