A free public meeting on Monday, June 16, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., at the Chestnut Hill Public Library, 8711 Germantown Ave., about the pros and cons of fluoridation in municipal drinking water.

A free public meeting on Monday, June 16, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., at the Chestnut Hill Public Library, 8711 Germantown Ave., about the pros and cons of fluoridation in municipal drinking water.

by Beverly DeCer

Ed. Note: Beverly DeCer, RN, a local resident, is the founder of Flouride Free Philadelphia, a grassroots advocacy organization which is sponsoring a free public meeting on Monday, June 16, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., at the Chestnut Hill Public Library, 8711 Germantown Ave., for those individuals interested in the still-controversial issue of fluoridation in municipal drinking water. This is strictly an opinion piece. We welcome opinions either for or against this one.

The policy of water fluoridation has been in effect for 60 years. It started in the late 1940s when industrial fluoride pollution began to generate lawsuits toward the major corporations for worker injuries and catastrophic damage to surrounding communities. The military industrial complex also had an interest in the public acceptance of the mounting amount of fluoride in their environment, since huge amounts of fluoride were needed for their nuclear weapons. Water fluoridation science was brought to us by laboratories owned by corporations, like the Mellon Institute and the Kettering Laboratory. This same cabal brought us asbestos and lead in our gasoline in complicity with our government.

The Secretary of the Treasury at the time, Andrew Mellon, owner of Alcoa Aluminum, a huge fluoride polluter, gave the U.S. Department of Health the green light to begin experimenting with water fluoridation in Flint, Michigan, and Newburg, New York, without animal studies! This was the 1950s, not a stellar moment for human rights. One leading fluoride scientist, Harold Hodge, injected plutonium into unsuspecting patients in his other efforts.

Of course, a great PR man, Edward L. Bernays, was hired to roll out the program, and he was highly successful in convincing the public to drink dilute amounts of a chemical that is more toxic than lead. Bernays’ tenet was that people trust and will listen to their doctors and dentists.

The chemical companies who sell this hazardous, toxic chemical are making billions, especially since they do not need to pay to have this byproduct disposed in a landfill. It is a financial bonanza for them! It is a no-win health challenge for the public.

Fluoride may structurally harden your teeth when it comes in contact with your tooth enamel, but just because your teeth are harder does not make them structurally sound. Dentists have not gone out of business. We are simply conditioned to accept fluoride as something wonderful that dentists have recommended for us, and we mindlessly brush or swish with it every day…as well as drink it. One of the most striking examples that fluoridation does not work is in the state of Kentucky, which is 100% fluoridated. (PA is 40%.) Yet Kentucky also has the distinction of having the most toothless adults over the age of 18, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). On the other hand, Utah which is only 2% fluoridated, ranks among the top states of elderly adults with all of their teeth.

Is fluoridation effective? No. World Health Organization statistics prove that countries which do not fluoridate have no worse dental health than the U.S. Italy has better dental health statistics! The CDC boasts continually, “Fluoridation is one of the 10 most successful health programs.” The CDC spins statistics which show a decline in decay over the last 40 years and point to fluoridation as the cause, but ALL industrialized countries have reduced decay, fluoridated or not.

97% of European countries stopped fluoridating in the ’70s and ’80s when it became clear the fluoridation was not harmless, nor was it right to mass “medicate” a population without informed consent. In the U.S., our corporate-ocracy was keeping a tight rein on the status quo by branding leaders or scientists who spoke out against fluoridation as troublemakers, or worse, they would lose their jobs.

Fluoride has been labeled as carcinogenic, a neurotoxin, endocrine-disrupting protoplasmic poison, but we continue to pump it into our water. Nobel Prize winning scientists have spoken out against adding a toxic chemical to water, but the pro-fluoride lobby continues to brand harmful evidence as “junk science.”

Is fluoridation a hoax? Yes. Studies agree, including the government-funded Iowa Study, which reported, “Achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake” (Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 2009), but the facts have not been turned into action to reverse this political policy.

Dental fluorosis, a symptom of fluoride toxicity, is epidemic, and 41% of American teenagers now have a form of this disfigurement of their teeth. Make no mistake, fluoridation continues because our bureaucracy cannot admit they were wrong, and there is a huge pro-fluoridation lobby backed by millions of dollars and corporate power. The Pew Charitable Trust spends millions to promote fluoridation. Why?

Retired biochemist Vivian Schatz, of Mt. Airy, calls fluoridation “a religion.” The papers of her late husband, Albert Schatz, were published all over the world in the 1960s, which proved that fluoride is a neurotoxin. He could not get them published here in the U.S.! Many defend fluoridation vehemently and will not examine the scientific evidence. There is also a “cognitive dissonance” which makes our psyche unable to accept that our government/medical hierarchy could be promoting a policy that is harmful. Now with social media and access to information, people are waking up quickly.

Help turn the tide on water fluoridation. Call your national, state, and city representatives and kindly demand that fluoridation end. Attend the public meeting on Monday, June 16, 6:30 to 8:30 pm, at the Chestnut Hill Public Library. For more information, visit Fluoride Free Philadelphia on Facebook, or email fluoridefreephiladelphia@gmail.com.

Fluoride Free Philadelphia is not a registered non-profit, simply a grassroots organization. “We no not have a website,” said Ms. DeCer, “because we do not have the money or manpower. Facebook is now the best way to reach out to the community and to interact with other groups, politicians and other individuals.”

  • James Reeves

    Of course, fluoridation a hoax.

    There are many studies done by research scientists which indicate a variety of health dangers associated with water fluoridation. Many of them are presented at the site below. It begins with a statement from Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, PhD in pharmacology:

    “fluoride exposures today are out of control,” and “.. there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for benefit.” Dr. Mullenix cites data from 18 clinical studies in her analysis.

    The list is supported by over 40 scientific references. Take a look.

  • FFTN

    Water fluoridation – a cleverly devised plan to avoid proper and safe waste management of toxic chemicals.

  • Janet Nagel

    Fortunately, other more effective avenues of fluoride treatment are easily available to anyone wanting to receive it, namely fluoridated toothpaste or mouthwash.

    Back in 1999–15 years ago–the CDC (US Centers for Disease Control), dropped the “systemic effect” theory, saying in an article titled Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries:
    “Fluoride’s caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.”

    Since very little fluoride actually comes in contact with the teeth via fluoridated water, and since many epidemiological studies show no difference in decay rates between fluoridated and not-fluoridated water districts, fluoridated toothpaste or mouthwash are clearly superior vehicles for fluoride treatment when it is desired.

    • Beverly

      Thank you Janet for your very thoughtful and comprehensive response. Yes, the systemic approach to fluoride is clearly discredited. Even Dr. William Bailey, chief dental officer for the Public Health Service and acting director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of oral health, was named in the New York Times (Oct. 2011) as being among the experts who agree “that fluoride works best when applied topically, directly to the teeth.”

      There is absolutely NO reason to subject the population to more toxic chemicals. I have an independent chemical analysis of the hydrofluorosilicic acid that was being used to fluoridate in the Borough of Pottstown, which stopped water fluoridation in 2012. When I spoke to the chemical engineer on the phone, requesting an explanation of the report, she said, “there is too much arsenic in this sample for it to be accepted into some landfills.” I asked her to repeat that statement. Then I asked her if she knew that this sample was not headed for a landfill (which is the other option for h2sif6), and she said, “I do now!” OK, we have a chemical that is TOO toxic for a landfill, but it is being added to drinking water. This policy is insane.

      This information (and more) was given to Philadelphia’s Health Commissioner Donald Schwartz, MD, at a meeting in his office, last June (2013). We also requested that he direct a warning to be given to mothers NOT to use fluoridated tap water to reconstitute infant formula, as suggested by the ADA, etc. Many city’s and states are giving warnings on water bills, in WIC centers, at home visits, etc. No action has been taken, and we have not received a response. Dental fluorosis, the most common symptom of fluoride toxicity, has increased dramatically and in 2004 was at 41% (CDC), up from 22% in 1987. What is it now, and what is the occurrence in Philadelphia? Most likely even higher.

      One could stop presenting the scientific absurdity of this policy and focus on the informed consent principal, which you you describe so beautifully, Janet. Water fluoridation is also a violation of international treaty, The UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights states
      Article 6 – Consent

      1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

      Bioethically, water fluoridation is a violation and on that reason alone should be ended immediately.

      Again, thank you Janet and it would be wonderful to have you working with us here in Philadelphia, but we greatly appreciate your support from a distance.

  • Janet Nagel

    As with many other health issues, people with conflicting views on
    fluoridation of public water supplies point to conflicting results of
    scientific studies. Nevertheless, this much is true about “science” and

    There is no way that science can prove that any
    therapeutic substance or procedure will not harm anyone. Scientific
    research can only fail to find injury in the particular instances it has
    tested for. And there are usually known unknowns and always unknown

    That is why in ethical medical and public health
    practice individuals must be informed of the anticipated risks and
    benefits of the treatment and permitted to decide whether or not they
    want to receive it. When fluoride is put in the common water supply
    that everyone depends on, the ethical rule of informed consent for
    treatment is violated.

    Beyond that, promoters of fluoridation
    agree that
    fluoridation causes dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis IS harm.
    Fluoridators acknowledge that dental fluorosis is an undesirable outcome
    of fluoridation when they advise that fluoridated water should not be
    used regularly
    to prepare infant formula. Furthermore, a large body of research shows
    skeletal, neurological and hormonal injury by fluoride. Fluoridators
    dispute this evidence but, if nothing else, this evidence is strong
    enough to establish doubt about the safety of fluoridation for all water

    Since it is agreed by everyone that fluoridated water poses a
    risk of fluorosis to infants, and since other research raises doubt about the
    safety of fluoridated water to other demographic groups, the
    precautionary principle requires that fluoride not be added to the
    common water supply.

  • Janet Nagel

    This is a very good summary, Beverly. I’ve been following the fluoridation controversy for more than two decades and can affirm that all of what you’ve written is well documented, as anyone who wants to can verify with an internet search. I’m no longer in PA, but as a Philadelphia native I’m especially enthusiastic about Fluoride Free Philadelphia and hope you will make great strides toward freeing us all from this pathetic Orwellian deception. Fluoridation is unethical, unnatural, unscientific, unhealthy and unnecessary.

  • Bill Kilvert

    My very best wishes Beverly, for your meeting on the 16th June, from the 1000 strong Anti-fluoridation Group in Cairns, Queensland, Australia. We are part of the World wide fight against fluoride and we will never stop fighting till fluoride is banished from all water supplies. We gain our inspiration from the “Fluoride Action Network” where there is a plethora of scientific literature. Cheers…Bill Kilvert

  • jenna torrence

    What do dentists say? That is the opinion that matters.

    • Beverly

      Thank you for your question, Jenna. There are many dentists who disagree with even the use of fluoride topically, and are also completely against ingesting fluoride chemicals, here are a few links:



      This dentist, Jim Maxey DDS, has an offer of $100,000 and will revoke his license if anyone can: “To the first individual who can provide one copy of any controlled experiment with the U.S. Public Health Service recommended fluorides and water at USPHS recommended parts per million, that shows that poisonous fluorides are (as published as fact by promoters of fluoridation) safe, beneficial and will cause no future body harm.”
      This same monetary offer was made by a group a few decades ago and nobody ever claimed it.

      Here is an excerpt from Dr. Wolfe’s website, a holistic dentist, who has developed his own fluoride free toothpaste: http://www.drwolfe.com/dentistry/fluoride

      Did you know…

      That according to the handbook, “Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products,” fluoride is more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic.

      That according to the Physicians’ Desk Reference: “In hypersensitive individuals, fluoride occasionally causes skin eruptions such as atopic dermatitis, eczema, or urticaria. Gastric distress, headache, and weakness have also been reported. These hypersensitive reactions usually disappear promptly after discontinuation of the fluoride.”

      That the Canadian Dental Association recommends: “Fluoride supplements should not be recommended for children less than three years old.”

      That from 1990 to 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published three separate articles linking increased hip fracture rates to fluoride in the water.

      That in the March 22, 1990 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Mayo Clinic researchers reported that fluoride treatment of osteoporosis increased hip fracture rate and bone fragility.

      That a study by Proctor and Gamble showed that as little as half the amount of fluoride used to fluoridate public water supplies resulted in a sizable and significant increase in genetic damage.

      That in 1993, researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Health admitted: “in cultured human and rodent cells, the weight of the evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberrations [genetic damage].”

      That in 1988, the ability of fluoride to transform normal cells into cancer cells was confirmed by Argonne National Laboratories.

      That the research of Dr. Dean Burk, former Chief Chemist of the National Cancer Institute, showed that about 10,000 or more fluoridation-linked cancer deaths occur yearly in the United States.

      That results from Battelle Research Institute showed that fluoride was linked to a rare form of liver cancer in mice, oral tumors and cancers in rats, and bone cancer in male rats.

      That since 1990, the National Cancer Institute, the New Jersey Department of Health, and the Safe Water Foundation all found that the incidence of osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer, was far higher in young men exposed to fluoridated water as compared to those who were not.

      So, you see Jenna, there are many dentists who disagree with water fluoridation, and I just touched on a few. Unfortunately, the American Dental Association has been promoting water fluoridation for 60 years now, and it would be impossible for them to reverse their policy without huge credibility and possibly liability problems. Very difficult to say, oops!! we were wrong. It seems that job has been relegated to our elected leaders, our regulators (DEP, EPA), and we the people.

      Thank you again for your question.