From FAN

“I believe this video (produced by Michael Connett and Kevin Hurley) will be a potent new weapon in trying to reach the ordinary person on this issue. It is only 4 minutes long but packs a powerful message especially for young parents. I think our revamped website easily wins the scientific arguments but if we wish to persuade the general public to end fluoridation we need communication tools like this.”

When Mayor Sanders and the councilors of San Diego opened their emails this morning they probably got a shock. They found over 1000 emails from people all over the US, Canada and several other countries (including Australia, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand and the UK) telling them that the idea of fluoridating San Diego’s water supply on Dec 22 was a terrible Christmas present for the 1.4 million residents of that city. We now have a very good reason to send in a second message.

New strong study correlates fluoride levels in children’s blood to lowered IQ:

A very important study, titled Serum Fluoride Level and Children’s Intelligence Quotient in Two Villages in China, was pre-published by Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) on Dec 17, 2010 (EHP is published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences).

In this study, Xiang and co-workers from China found an inverse correlation between the level of fluoride in children’s blood and their IQ. Specifically, Xiang et al. show that in a village in an area endemic for fluorosis that the higher the fluoride in the children’s blood the lower the IQ of the children studied.  In addition, the level of the fluoride in the children’s blood was strongly correlated with the level of the naturally occurring fluoride in their water.  Please note, that the levels of the fluoride in the water in the village studied (Wamiao, Jiangsu Province, China) were not that high 2.47 +/- 0.79 ppm (range 0.57-4.50). These levels are actually lower than the EPA’s so-called safe drinking water standard for fluoride (4 ppm). Previously Xiang had reported that a linear regression analysis of their data indicated that IQ would occur at levels as low as 1.9 ppm fluoride in the water (Xiang, 2003a,b). For a study that involved about 200 children this does not leave anything like an adequate margin of safety to protect the millions of children drinking artificially fluoridated water at 1 ppm. Finding a correlation between fluoride in the blood and lowered IQ further strengthens Xiang’s earlier findings.

Moreover, this study does not come out of the blue. It is the 24^th study that has found an association between fluoride in water and lowered IQ in children. Most of these have come from China, but they also include studies published in Mexico, India and Iran. There have also been over 100 studies that fluoride can damage animal brain and studies showing that the fetal brain has been damaged in aborted fetuses in areas of China endemic for fluorosis. A complete listing of these studies can be found in Appendix 1 of the book “The Case Against Fluoride…” which is available online, with permission from the publisher.

One of the earliest animal studies of fluoride’s impact on the brain in the U.S. was by Mullenix et al. (1995). This led to the firing of the lead author by the Forsyth Dental Center (the details of this are in Chris Bryson’s book The Fluoride Deception). This treatment sent out a clear message to other researchers in the U.S. that it was not good for their careers to look into the health effects of fluoride – particularly on the brain!

When the National Research Council reviewed this topic in their 507-page report “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards” published in 2006, only 5 of the IQ studies were available in English. Even so the panel found the link between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ both consistent and “plausible.” There have now been another 19 studies that have since been published or become available via English translation.

Risk-benefit analysis.  Let’s put two studies in the weighing pans of a risk-benefit analysis. In the left hand pan let’s put the largest US study purporting to demonstrate fluoridation’s benefit (Brunelle and Carlos,1990) and in the right hand pan let’s put this study by Xiang, and see where the balance of wise policy lies.

The left hand pan. The Brunelle and Carlos study indicates that comparing tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in a fluoridated community (versus a non-fluoridated one) had an average saving (for 5-17 year olds) of 0.6 of one permanent tooth surface out of over 100 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth. Not only was this miniscule saving not shown to be statistically significant but it completely disappears if a one-year delay occurs in the eruption of the teeth of the children in the fluoridated communities (for which there is some evidence).

The right hand pan. The Xiang study (2003 a,b) indicates that their might be a lowering of IQ at 1.9 ppm, allowing an inadequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking uncontrolled amounts of water at 1 ppm (and getting fluoride from other sources). Now Xiang et al’s (2010) study strengthens this original finding by relating lowered IQ to plasma fluoride levels, which brings the finding closer to individual exposure.

Could either a parent or a decision maker possibly justify a practice that may possibly lower tooth decay by a very small amount, while it may possibly be risking their mental development? Surely the right hand scale pan must tip the left in this analysis?

Back to San Diego:On Dec 22, the San Diego council plans to fluoridate the water of 1.4 million people. We have just two days left to bring the Mayor Sanders and the Councilors to their senses. Maybe this breakthrough study will make them pause – at least till after Christmas!

So whether you have used our online messaging system to deliver them the previous message or not, please send in a second message and get as many of your friends and others on your email lists to do the same. We must make these two days count. Click here to read and send the message!

Thanks again to everyone for the magnificent response to our first call for emails to the SD mayor and council. Hopefully, we will get even more messages sent with this second appeal.  Meanwhile, we must hope that Xiang’s new study will bring other councils to their senses as well.

References can be found at FAN’s bibliography.

Paul Connett, Director
Fluoride Action Network
http://fluoridealert.org/

SIGNERS:
• U.S. A-M – N-Z
• International signers

SCIENCE & MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS:
Sign the Professionals’ Statement to End Fluoridation

• Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate for Physiology or Medicine, 2000
• Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, Immediate Past President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE)
• Ingrid Eckerman, MD, MPH, President, Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LFM), Stockholm, Sweden
• Raul Montenegro, PhD, Right Livelihood Award 2004 (known as the Alternative Nobel Prize), President of FUNAM, Professor of Evolutionary Biology, National University of Cordoba, Argentina
• The current President and six past Presidents of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
• Three scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters Union in Washington D.C.
* William Marcus, PhD, Former chief toxicologist of the EPA Water Division, Boyds, MD
• Three members of the National Research Council committee who wrote the landmark 2006 report: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards (Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS; Robert L. Isaacson, PhD; Kathleen M. Thiessen, PhD)
• The Board of Directors, American Academy of Environmental Medicine
• Two advisory board members of the UK government sponsored “York Review”
• Andy Harris, MD, former national president, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Salem, OR
• Theo Colborn, PhD, co-author, Our Stolen Future
• Lynn Margulis, PhD, a recipient of the National Medal of Science
• Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, President and Executive Director, Environmental Working Group (EWG)
• Ron Cummins, Director, Organic Consumers Association
• Magda Aelvoet, MD, Former Minister of Public Health, Leuven, BELGIUM
• Doug Everingham, former Federal Health Minister (1972-75), Australia
• Peter Montague, PhD, Director of Environmental Health Foundation
• Ted Schettler, MD, Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network
• Stephen Lester, Science Director, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice
• Lois Gibbs, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, Goldman Prize Winner (1990), Falls Church, VA
• Rosalie Bertell, PhD, Regent of the Board, International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland, Retired President, International Institute of Concern for Public Health, Toronto, Canada
• FIVE Goldman Prize winners (2006, 2003, 1997, 1995, 1990)
• Sam Epstein, MD, author, “Politics of Cancer” and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
• Pat Costner, retired Senior Scientist, Greenpeace International
• Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides
• Sandra Duffy, Board President, Consumers for Dental Choice
• Joseph Mercola, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, http://www.mercola.com, Chicago, IL
• Michael W. Fox, DSc, PhD, BVM, MRCVS (former vice president of The Humane Society of the US, former vice president of Humane Society International and the author of more than 40 adult and children’s books on animal care, animal behavior and bioethics), http://www.twobitdog.com/DrFox/, Minneapolis, MN
• Leo Cashman, Executive Director of DAMS (Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome)
• Chris Bryson, author, The Fluoride Deception
• Environmental leaders from over 30 countries, and
• Legendary folksinger, songwriter and activist, Pete Seeger

Signers by-degree as of July 28, 2010:

• 479 Nurses (RN, MSN, BSN, ARNP, APRN, LNC, RGON
• 436 DC’s (Doctor of Chiropractic, includes M Chiro)
• 400 PhD’s – includes DSc, Doctor of Science; EdD (Doctor of Education); DrPH (Doctor of Public Health)
• 341 MD’s (includes MBBS)
• 277 Dentists (DDS, DMD, BDS)
• 136 ND’s (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine)
• 73 Lawyers (JD, LLB, Avvocato)
• 65 RDHs (Registered Dental Hygienist); also DH, RDHAP, EFDA, RDAEF, and RDN
• 62 Pharmacists (Pharm.D, B. Pharm, DPh, RPH)
• 47 Acupuncturists (LAc – Licensed Acupuncturist, and, MAc -Master Acupuncturist)
• 30 DO’s (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine)
• 20 Veterinarians (DMV, VMD, BVMS)

---

MEDIA COVERAGE

//

Other Media Coverage: ABC News (Washington DC) | The Politico | KHOU-TV (Houston) | Calgary Herald | Vancouver Sun | CNS News | Organic Consumers Association | Fluoride Journal Editorial

Red Flags Weekly

November 28, 2002

The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation

by Paul Connett, PhD

Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so “safe and effective” that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.

For over 50 years US government officials have confidently and enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is “safe and effective”. However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming.

To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical from the scientific arguments.

For those for whom ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply not ethical; we simply shouldn’t be forcing medication on people without their “informed consent”. The bad news is that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington, DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are buttressed by solid common sense arguments and scientific studies which convincingly show that fluoridation is neither “safe and effective” nor necessary. I have summarized the arguments in several categories:

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual’s response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:

“I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history…Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day – to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy.”

As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ‘ It is a preposterous notion.”

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called “optimal” doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride’s benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children’s blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don’t want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called “optimal concentration” of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke’s finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC’s 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else’s advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.

Those who pull the strings of these public health ‘puppets’, do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of “authorities” which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: “Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?”

Motivations – especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers – are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:

a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation’s children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a ‘pollutant.’
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.

So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless essential – in order to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm – that the US Government begin to move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly absurd, status quo on this issue. There are precedents. They were able to do this with hormone replacement therapy.

But getting any honest action out of the US Government on this is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood – science can sharpen the nail but we need the weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to educate the American people and then recruiting their help to put sustained pressure on our political representatives. At the very least we need a moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means turning off the tap for a few months) until there has been a full Congressional hearing on the key issues with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. With the issue of education we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key studies are available on the internet and there are videotaped interviews with many of the scientists and protagonists whose work has been so important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue.

With this new information, more and more communities are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the local level. On the national level, there have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other national groups to get involved in order to make this the national issue it desperately needs to be.

I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they can’t than I hope they will get off the fence and help end one of the silliest policies ever inflicted on the citizens of the US. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation without further delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation represents a very powerful “belief system” backed up by special interests and by entrenched governmental power and influence.

Paul Connett.

All references cited can be found at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/biblio.html

The Medical News
March 16, 2010

Fluoride chemicals may increase lead accumulation, say researchers By the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

(See original article)

Fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies, boosts lead absorption in lab animals’ bones, teeth and blood, report Sawan, et al. (Toxicology 2/2010) . Earlier studies already show children’s blood-lead-levels are higher in fluoridated communities, reports Sawan’s research team.

“…exposure to increased amounts of lead and fluoride occurs at about the same age (1-3 years)… Therefore, this is a critical time when systemic exposure to fluoride should be minimized since fluoride may increase lead accumulation,” the researchers caution.

Low-level lead exposure is associated with lower IQ, ADHD and many health and behavior ailments.

Fluosilicic acid (fluoride) is added to water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay.

Sawan’s team put fluosilicic acid, with and without lead, into lab animals’ drinking water. They found more lead in tooth enamel, surface bone, whole bone, and tooth dentine in rats co-exposed to fluoride and lead.

Possibly anticipating criticism that rats were fed higher fluoride-concentrated water than people drink, the authors write, “This concentration was chosen because it produces plasma fluoride levels that are comparable with those commonly found in humans…”

Increased prevalence and severity of fluoride-discolored teeth (fluorosis) proves U.S. children are already fluoride-overexposed, “which may cause their blood-lead levels to increase and produce more lead toxicity,” they write.

“These findings suggest that a biological effect, not recognized so far, may underlie the epidemiological association between increased blood-lead levels in children and water fluoridation,” concludes Sawan’s research team.

“[O]ur findings may have serious implications for populations exposed to increased amounts of both lead and fluoride, particularly young children,” the research team writes.

Fluoridation chemicals often contain lead (NSF International).

Attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF), says, “People need to lobby and petition their legislators to stop fluoridation in their towns, cities and states. Legislators are ignoring the science proving fluoridation is endangering our health, our water supplies and wasting tax dollars while denying freedom of choice.” (see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/sitemap.html )

Masters and Coplan’s landmark studies show higher blood-lead-levels in children living in silico-fluoridated communities (Neurotoxicology 2000, 2007). Macek’s research shows children’s higher blood-lead-levels are associated with water fluoridation when lead is already in the environment ( Environmental Health Perspectives, 2006 ).

Some fluoridation chemicals originate in China, Mexico and Japan, reports the CDC.

23 published studies report an association of reduced IQ
with high fluoride exposure

Print version (pdf)

In the summer of 2008, the following two reports reviewed the published studies reporting an association of high fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. The fluoride levels in water in these studies range from 0.88 – 9.4 ppm.

Connett M, Limeback H.
Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence. A systematic review.
International Association for Dental Research 83rd General Session and Exhibition. Toronto, Canada.
Poster 2205. July 4, 2008.

Tang Q-Q, Du J, Ma H-H, Jiang S-J, Zhou X-J.
Fluoride and Children’s Intelligence: A Meta-analysis.
Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008 Aug 10. 2008.

The Tang et al. study cites 16 studies, including 5 Chinese studies that had not been translated into English. FAN plans to have them translated.

The Connett & Limeback review, published prior to Tang et al., found 18 out of 20 studies reporting an association to fluoride exposure and lowered IQ. Their results are reproduced below in the following Table.

The citations for the 23 studies are listed at the end with links to the Chinese and translated versions.

The Fluoride journal published 6 of the translated Chinese studies on fluoride’s impact on IQ in its April-June 2008 edition (Qin-1990, Chen-1991, Guo-1991, Liu-2000, Hong-2001, Li-2003) and will publish more translated studies in later editions.

Twelve (12) of the human/IQ studies were originally published in Chinese. Julian Brooke translated these studies into English under contract with Fluoride Action Network.

In their review of the toxicology of fluoride, the committee who authored the 2006 National Research Council of the National Academies report on fluoride (NRC), cited only 3 of the 23 studies in its ‘Findings on Human Cognitive Abilities’, and cited 6 of the 23 studies in its references (Yang et al., 1994; Li et al., 1995; Lin et al., 1991; Zhao et al., 1996; Lu et al., 2000; Xiang et al., 2003). 5 studies (including one untranslated Chinese study) were published after the NRC report was released. The NRC report stated:

Human Cognitive Abilities.
In assessing the potential health effects of fluoride at 2-4 mg/L, the committee found three studies of human populations exposed at those concentrations in drinking water that were useful for informing its assessment of potential neurologic effects. These studies were conducted in different areas of China, where fluoride concentrations ranged from 2.5 to 4 mg/L. Comparisons were made between the IQs of children from those populations with children exposed to lower concentration of fluoride ranging from 0.4 to 1 mg/L. The studies reported that while modal IQ scores were unchanged, the average IQ scores were lower in the more highly exposed children. This was due to fewer children in the high IQ range. While the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and their relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the collective results warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence. Investigation of other mental and physiological alterations reported in the case study literature, including mental confusion and lethargy, should also be investigated.
Ref: bottom of page 220 to page 221

The NRC report also stated:

On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. To determine the possible adverse effects of fluoride, additional data from both the experimental and the clinical sciences are needed.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=222

For the sources to this table click here

Here is the video of this recent story

Fluoride: Friend Or Foe?

Fluoride Opponent Says Chemical Is Harmful To Our Health

By Stephany Fisher, CBS Atlanta Anchor

ATLANTA — It’s in the tap water we drink and many of the foods we eat.For decades, we’ve been told that it helps fight cavities, but there are critics who say this chemical is doing more harm than good.”I’ve worked with a lot of dangerous things in my career. I don’t get real worked up over chemicals or I could have never done my job — this one scares me,” said Daniel Stockin, a health advocate whose background includes toxics assessment.What could it be? Arsenic? Lead?No, it’s fluoride — the kind you brush your teeth with, and the kind that’s been added to Atlanta’s city water supply since 1969. Every public water district in Georgia is required by law to do so. “When we started to fluoridate 50-plus years ago, water was the only source for the fluoride, then they really quickly said hey, let’s put it in toothpaste, and then it started to show up in the foods made with fluoridated water,” Stockin said.

read full story here

Here is the Article:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee public utilities would have to provide notice if they stop fluoridation of their water systems under a proposal that was unanimously approved by the Senate.

The measure sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Barnes of Clarkesville was approved 32-0 on Thursday.

Utilities would have to notify the state within 10 days of the decision and the public 30 days prior to discontinuance.

Barnes says he proposed the measure after residents in Montgomery County complained that a public utility there decided to remove fluoride from the water without notifying them.

Fluoride is added to drinking water to help reduce tooth decay.

The companion bill is awaiting a vote in the House Public Health and Family Subcommittee.