Dentists drill councils over water fluoridation decay

03-15: At the Dentist

By Dr Karin Alexander*

In the 1930s, American scientists and public health researchers made a simple, but profoundly important discovery. People living in towns with around one part per million of fluoride found naturally in their drinking water had much less tooth decay that people whose drinking water contained lower levels of fluoride.

All water supplies contain fluoride, but the levels can vary significantly. At the time, tooth decay in Western countries was a greater public health problem than today, and most people wore false teeth from early adulthood.

After extensive research, a trial of artificial community water fluoridation began in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945. The massive decay rates of the time plummeted, and trials in other parts of America and Canada soon followed. Over the next few decades, water fluoridation became widely accepted throughout the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Brazil and many other countries around the world.

In Australia, the first fluoridated towns were Beaconsfield in Tasmania (site of the 2006 mine collapse) in 1953 and Yass in New South Wales in 1956. Most Australian states and territories quickly recognized the huge health, financial and social benefits of water fluoridation, and legislation ensured that most towns and cities were fluoridated by the 1960s and 70s.

The exception was in Queensland, where the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1963 considered fluoridation to be a water treatment issue rather than a health issue. Responsibility for fluoridation decision making was placed solely in the hands of local councils.

By 2008, the only Queensland towns fluoridating their water supplies were Townsville, Moranbah, Mareeba and Dalby. This represented less than 5 per cent of Queenslanders, compared with around 80-90 per cent of Australians in other states and territories.

Decades without widespread water fluoridation had a dramatic effect on dental health in Queensland. Australian Child Dental Health Surveys have been conducted every year or two since the 1980s. Invariably they show Queensland children experiencing more tooth decay than children from other states. However, this underestimates the positive effect of water fluoridation, since not all children from other states drink fluoridated water, and many Queensland children will have come from interstate, and will have grown up drinking fluoridated water.

To address this issue, the 2002 Australian Child Dental Health Survey examined more than 136,000 children across Australia, and specifically recorded whether they drank fluoridated water or not.

The Survey found that no matter which state or territory children came from, what age group they were, whether they were rich or poor or in between, whether they lived in the capital city or regionally or remotely, children who drank fluoridated water had much less tooth decay than children who didn’t.

These findings were confirmed by a major 2012 review paper which analysed all studies published worldwide from 1990-2010, in any language, examining the effects of water fluoridation.

The authors found 59 studies from 10 countries, including thirteen from Australia.
Without exception, every one of these studies showed a significant reduction in tooth decay, with most showing reductions of around 25-50 per cent.

More than kids stuff

Water fluoridation is not just for children. Another recently published study was based on data collected from the National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06. Dental examinations of 5,505 adults from around Australia found significantly less decay experience in adults drinking fluoridated water.
These benefits were also seen in adults who had grown up prior to the introduction of fluoride toothpaste and fluoridated water. Greater benefits were shown for adults who had been drinking fluoridated water for longer.

It is important to note that measured reductions in tooth decay experience may actually underestimate the effect of water fluoridation. Fillings have a limited life span, and are regularly replaced or repaired.

Preventing one permanent tooth cavity in a child may prevent not just one cavity, but a whole lifetime of treatment on that tooth, with each successive treatment becoming larger, more complex and more expensive.

Widespread water fluoridation in Queensland was finally mandated by the Bligh State Government in 2008, with the State Government paying capital costs and local councils all ongoing costs.

Inexplicably the current Queensland Government amended this legislation in 2012 and once again placed responsibility for fluoridation decision making in the hands of local councils.

Many councils, including those from major regional centres such as Cairns, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Maryborough, Hervey Bay and Mount Isa, opted out of fluoridation. Some buckled under the pressure of scaremongering claims from anti-fluoride lobby groups, and others refused to pay the ongoing costs.

The Australian Dental Association recognizes the right of State Governments to legislate as they see fit, but the public health of Queenslanders was clearly not considered in the passing of the amendments, and no health authorities were consulted during the legislative process.

The amended legislation required that councils make decisions on water fluoridation “in the best interests of their communities”, but are the best interests of people from Cairns, Rockhampton and Bundaberg any different to the best interests of people from Brisbane, Townsville, Toowoomba and the majority of councils which retained water fluoridation?

Bigger responsibilities

Communities and their elected representatives should always be involved in a consultation process whenever water fluoridation or any other important measures are planned, but the greatest public health and scientific expertise lies at State and Federal levels of government.

Responsibility for decision making on water fluoridation and other complex public health matters should therefore also rest at these levels. Public health policy in Australia must be driven by proven science and the best interests of Australians, not misinformation and conspiracy theory web sites.

The current National Oral Health Plan urges fluoridation of water supplies in all towns with populations over 1,000, and was signed by all federal, state and territory Health Ministers in 2004.

Failure to take action on a serious public health problem when a safe, cheap and proven preventive measure is available is inexcusable.

Many northern NSW councils have yet to fluoridate their water supplies, and in widely publicised moves, Lismore City Council recently voted against its introduction, then rescinded that motion.

Children in northern NSW are reported to have more than double the number cavities of children in other parts of the state, and NSW Health confirmed that they were almost twice as likely to be hospitalised for dental extractions.

Directly or indirectly, we all pay dearly for the level of dental disease in our communities, and it is in all our interests to reduce health, financial and social costs of that disease.

Water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste have contributed to a dramatic reduction in tooth decay in Australian children, but decay levels have actually been rising again since the mid-1990s. By the age of 6, more than half of Australian children have already suffered tooth decay.

By the age of 8, this rises to more than two thirds. Tooth decay is often painful, and its treatment is difficult, distressing and expensive. Prevention is better than a cure.

Some people are opposed to water fluoridation, just as some people are opposed to vaccinations.

Anti-fluoride lobby groups clutch at every possible straw in their attempts to deprive Australians of water fluoridation, but their arguments are invariably based on ignorance and the fear factor. Most are centred on what they claim are health and ethical concerns.

Water fluoridation is probably the most widely studied public health measure of all time. Hundreds of studies over many decades have assessed possible associations between water fluoridation and a wide range of health conditions, and the scientific evidence in favour of water fluoridation is now overwhelming.

The evidence is in

Systematic reviews from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council and health authorities around the world consistently find that water fluoridation does not cause harmful health effects.

In 2001, the World Health Organization described water fluoridation as “…the most effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay”, later declaring that “universal access to fluoride for dental health is a part of the basic human right to health”.

The US-based Centers for Disease Control has ranked water fluoridation alongside control of infectious diseases and the decline in deaths from heart disease and strokes as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.

Within Australia, water fluoridation is endorsed by no less than the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Medical Association, Australian Dental Association, Australian Academy of Science, Australian Public Health Association, and all federal, state and territory health departments.

Endorsement of water fluoridation from dentists, doctors and other health professional groups is based on a strong commitment to ethical practice and a rigorous scientific peer review process.

Decisions and recommendations are made in the interests of patients and the community.

And support for water fluoridation within Australia is not limited to major health authorities. After a detailed analysis of water fluoridation in 2007, the independent and highly respected Choice magazine concluded that “There’s now solid scientific evidence that fluoride added to drinking water helps to protect your teeth from decay”.

Choice pointedly added that “The claims of those who oppose fluoridation are often based on out-dated information, questionable research and selectively picking studies that support their case”. What about the shrill accusations that water fluoridation is unethical, and a “mass medication”?
Emotive words indeed, and they raise the unpleasant spectacle of Big Brother. But fluoride is a substance already found naturally in water, plants, rocks, soil and food.

No governments, legal systems or health authorities anywhere in Australia have ever described water fluoridation as a medication or drug. In 2006, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Department of Health and Ageing, and the New Zealand Ministry of Health specifically described fluoride as a nutrient, adding that “Because of its role in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay), fluoride has been classified as essential to human health”.

The great Australian bite

All decisions at all levels of government will be opposed by some, but governments have a responsibility to make decisions for the greater public good. Examples in public health include mandatory seat belts in cars, smoking restrictions, blood alcohol laws, the chlorination of drinking water to prevent water-borne illnesses and the mandatory addition of folic acid, thiamine and iodized salt to all bread products in Australia to prevent spina bifida, nerve damage, goitre and the mental retardation associated with iodine deficiency.

Are these “mass medication” or unethical breaches of liberty? Of course not. Our communities expect governments to make such decisions, and readily accept these and water fluoridation as simple, sensible, and highly effective public health measures.

Water fluoridation can be a difficult political issue. Those working in federal, state, and local governments know well the passion and the fury of the anti-fluoride lobby. The large majority of letters, e-mails and phone calls to elected representatives are opposed to water fluoridation, but most come from other towns and other states, even other countries!

On-line polls and voluntary referendums and mail-outs attract the vehemently opposed rather than the silent majority who wonder what all the fuss is about. Despite these setbacks, reputable public opinion surveys consistently show that a high proportion of Australians recognize the benefits of water fluoridation and want their drinking water to be fluoridated.

The minority who disagree still have the options of drinking tank water, filtered water or bottled water, but they cannot be allowed to deprive the majority of Australians of a proven health measure.

In his 1956 Pulitzer Prize winning book Profiles in Courage, the future US President John F. Kennedy acknowledged the “…pressure groups and letter writers (who) represent only a small percentage of the voters” and cautioned that their views cannot be ignored.

But after weighing up competing views, Kennedy concluded by reserving his highest praise for public officials who could rise above competing interests – those willing to compromise on issues, but not on principles. Few principles are more important than public health.

Dr Karin Alexander is the Federal President of the Australian Dental Association Inc.

Comment below to have your say on this story.

If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at  

Sign up to the Government News newsletter

40 thoughts on “Dentists drill councils over water fluoridation decay

  1. Here is a list of 13 Nobel Prize winners in chemistry and medical science who opposed fluoridation. Surely we can trust some of their expertise on this subject.

    People everywhere are learning the truth that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health, so only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their drinking water. Last July Israel banned it. To see why, Google “Fluoride dangers” and read a few of the 800,000 articles.

  2. Alexander refers to the National Oral Health Plan (2004) advocating fluoridation for all towns.
    This is a typical example of how fluoridation is promoted. You go to that document and you see that it only has two (yes, 2!) references about fluoridation. Those two papers are poor quality and out-of-date journal articles. One of them in fact references the other as its source of authority. It is a shambles.
    Alexander fails to take account of the many, many examples of countries around the world that achieve excellent results in dental health (low decay rates) without recourse to water fluoridation. For example: Netherlands, France, Germany, Japan, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland … I could go on and on. Very few countries do practice fluoridation. It is utterly unnecessary. And fluoridation certainly poses a risk to the health of some consumers – unfortunately there is still insufficient research to say exactly how many are harmed in a significant way. I have certainly met a number of fluoride victims who suffer awful, reactive health effects when they consume any fluoridated water. Life is hell for these individuals.

    1. These are excellent points you’ve made David. They bully the public with a magic show they call “science”.and it’s outrageousrted.
      They use the word “Mandate” as if it’s an immutable law by an almighty decree!
      This President of the Dental Ass. is a total idiot or maybe she thinks we are idiots. To say that “water fluoridation doesn’t produce any harmful effects” is Contrary to the known facts.
      How can you compare a decaying tooth to the torture, life destroying assault and eventual murder of a man or woman with severe skeletal fluorosis?

      1. yep the official statistics in America is that 50% of people over 50 have skeletal fluorosis 25% of people over 40 have no teeth, cavities are formed from the inside of the mouth with 4 reliable studies saying fluoride causes 20% more cavities

      2. yep the official statistics in America are that 50% of people over 50 have skeletal fluorosis 25% of people over 40 have no teeth, cavities are formed from the inside of the tooth with 4 reliable studies saying fluoride causes 20% more cavities

  3. Dr. Alexander recounts a fantastical tale worthy of the tooth fairy.

    The principle that she throws under the bus is that it’s unethical to administer blanket treatment without the informed consent of those being treated. That the dental profession is willing to disregard this most fundamental health care ethic says nothing good about their competence or their integrity.

    The claims she makes about safety and efficacy are not simply out of date, they are entirely bogus and always have been.

    Fluoridation is unethical, unhealthy, unscientific, untruthful and a complete waste of public funds.

  4. If you look at the Material Safety Data Sheet for Flouride, (as Sodium Flouride) you see that it is toxic.

    In small concentrations over a single use it is digestable without any noticable effects. But the long term effects can be significant.

    None of the studies you refer to mention the dental benefits of it versus the long term health impacts.

  5. Read the book “Fluoride, Drinking ourselves to death” and you might change your mind on the fluoride debate. A recent MIT public health article noted a correlation with reduced IQ and long term ingestion of fluoride in children. The original researcher in the 1930’s who noted a connection between fluoride and hardened rats teeth withdrew his findings in the 50’s. The chief dentist of New Zealand, appointed to implement fluoride in the country, withdrew his support after investigating the true figures and was fired from his position. Fluoride, which was an aluminium waste product of the DuPonts (with no value and a disposal cost) in the USA, was turned into a byproduct (with economic value) when they started to include it in US county water supplies and then into toothpaste in the 1950’s. How many anomalies do these people need before they address the significant flaws in the fluoride industries arguments. This is not a simple issue, but we get sold simplistic statements such as those by Karin Alexander which do not address the real issues of concern. Fluoride does have a place in dental maintenance, but it is not in the water supply, where it is only effective on growing teeth and it can be lethal in pre 5 year olds, if applied topically. Simplistic statements of public health are not acceptable from a person in such a public position of apparent authority.

  6. None of these responses is based on anything but anecdote and assertion…you are all free to be nutters, but don’t damage the dental health of our children….have a look at the reputable peer-reviewed science

    1. Christie, send me your email & I will forward the Lancet Volume 13 March 2014. In particular I will email you page 334, Table 2: Industrial chemicals known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in human beings in 2006 and 2013, according to chemical group. The list of those known in 2006 are, quote – Arsenic & arsenic compounds, lead & methylmercury, (ethanol) toluene & Polychlorinated biphenyls.
      The “Newly identified Metals & inorganic compounds include Fluoride & manganese.”
      Table 3 deals with loss of IQ points.
      Further key words on this page are ‘Developmental neurotoxicity causes brain damage’, ‘untreatable’, ‘permanent’, ‘lost IQ’, ‘antisocial behaviour’, ‘criminal behaviour’, ‘violence’, ‘special educational services’, heaps more. If you are fair dinkum about learning something, send your email. Mine is
      The action of putting poison in the water supply is also an action contrary to the (Qland) Criminal Code Act 1899

    2. Christie,
      you are free to give your children fluoride if you want.
      But what about my choice for my children if I don’t want to give it to them?

      I don’t believe the government has the right to force anyone to take any substance.

      Why can’t our government provide free (tax payer funded) fluoride to people that want it and leave the rest of us to drink clean water?

    3. You sure have been brain dirtied by the government. Fluoride is well-known to be a poison, and I’m glad that we don’t have it where I live.

    4. I believe that Colgate and any other toothpaste company is doing the right thing in regards to fluoride especially their warning about children younger than six regarding their product. What I can not believe is the silence from our university trained chemists (not pharmacy chemists) real chemists and biochemists. In the case of the toothpaste you are suppose to spit it out. Why hasn’t any one told us about what happens to fluoride when it comes into contact with hydrochloric acid. . We carry and make our own hydrochloric acid in our stomach .Look it it is a simple chemical reaction that makes poison that was never meant to be in our system.

  7. I am against Fluoridation of water due to my personal observation.
    Our children grew up in a shire without fluoridation and are now 30 years old, without any filling or tooth decay.
    The regular cleaning of teeth with fluride enriched toothpast and the avoidance of sugar water eg Coke etc, this together with a healthy diet are for me the main contributor to their health.
    Not sure what all these studies try to prove but I am very skeptical if all factors are considered.

  8. I have a Patient Information sheet on Sodium Fluoride gel that I obtained from a pharmacy in Queensland in February 2014. This sheet advises that Sodium Fluoride is a medication with risks. I am being medicated without consent why is the Government lying?

  9. I object to having Rat Poison added to my drinking water. Dental decay comes down to diet and hygiene. I have seen Babies sucking on Orange Juice in their bottles. Too many parents allow their children to consume too much sugary.foods and drinks.I and others should not be forced to be mass medicated with this “poison” because some parents don’t feed their children a healthy diet. In the 1950’s some councils provided Fluoride Tablets for people who wanted to give them to their children, so why can’t this be done again? I definitely DO NOT want to have to ingest Fluoride in my drinking water. I believe adding Fluoride to drinking water is just a way of making money out of a waste product and it should be banned just as it is in most if not all of Europe and the United States.

  10. Tooth decay comes down to diet and .hygiene. I and others should not be forced to ingest Fluoride which is RAT Poison. Most other countries have banned it. I believe it is just a way to make money from a waste product. ” which it undoubtedly is”.

  11. Most other Countries have banned this Rat poison from drinking water and so should we. It is just a way to make money from a waste product. I object to drinking it..

  12. Think about it. The President of Australian Dental Association is advocating a policy that is great for public health, but reduces demand for dental services. Isn’t it more likely that this isn’t a vast conspiracy, but a sound public health policy that is supported by most of the population? Also, the reason the science is “out of date” is that the science is settled, so not really worth further research. A bit like the earth orbits the sun and washing hands kills germs.

    Sadly, anti-fluoride campaigners belong in the pantheon of nutters alongside the anti-vaccine, mobile-phone-cause-cancer, creationists and survivalists …

    1. It’s really sad when people, with no notable knowledge base of their own, resort to hurling insults as a way of defending a stance. Calling people “nutters” for not wanting to ingest a poison is not logical. The people above have made reference to some great scientific research to proves that ingesting this poison will have long-term adverse affects on your health and all you can mitigate that with is that the guy telling us how good it is for us is the President of the Australian Dental Association? Really?? Is that all you have?? The lack of critical thought here is really disturbing. Get informed and then get back to me!!

  13. Oh please Dr Karen Alexander, you keep saying health claim about fluoride is unproven but what research findings prove what you and those of idiotic governments do to the water is good for health. At least as someone who has undertaken formal education you should have stated the sources to back up your points but you didnt and probably couldnt, neither any f**king government website. This just shows how unreliable and ignorant government systems can be (And dentists in your case “Dr”).

  14. Ian if you are unable to clearly see the motivations of the President of the Australian Dental Association in advocating fluoride in our water supplies, you must already be fluoride poisoned!! What a joke this association is, after promoting a NEUROTOXIC substance for so many years in Australia. As if they are gonna give up on THEIR STORY today!! And don’t worry, the dentists of today
    are kept plenty busy in our highly fluoridated country !!!

  15. There are none so blind as those who will not see. You read the article above, then regurgitate all the same FUD rubbish over and over. First of all, fluoride in water is not a medication, it is a micronutrient, second, it has been used for over fifty years in places like Sydney to the enourmous benefit of millions of people and has been shown to be one of the greatest medical advancements in public health this century. Please fluoridate the water, and all you FUDsters can drink water from your rainwater tanks and leave medical science to those who actually know what they are talking about…

    1. It is quite simple, I and I alone should make decisions on what drugs/nutrients/poisons go into my body. If other people want a little bit of an accumulative poison in their water for the rest of their lives, then they can go buy it themselves or the Govt can give it to them( but not in my tap water). My tap water costs me $0.00327109 per litre, why do I have to go buy water for $0.60 per litre or more for non-fluoridated water?

  16. Prove that fluoridation does not work?
    I grew up in Sydney on fluoridated water and have had terrible problems with tooth decay from my early teens. My wife grew up in Dubbo and drank tank water which was not fluoridated, and had no dental decay until after moving to Sydney and living here for 10 years.
    Dental Hygiene is the key, once I learned to brush my teeth effectively, my decay problems reduced and I have very little problems now apart from my old fillings having to be replaced now and then.
    The only way to quickly and effectively removed fluoride from drinking water if via reverse osmosis filter. Is the Government going to cover the cost of installation and maintenance of a filter that is required because of a policy that I did not want or was not consulted on?
    Better Education is the key to reducing tooth decay. The article point out that Tooth decay is on the rise today but this should not be happening since more people are drinking fluoridated water, therefore the claim that fluoride reduces tooth decay is false.

  17. Dr Karin Alexander brings her profession into disrepute and is an anomaly within the logical constructs of science. What are her qualifications and experience? She is vested interest personified. Throughout her article you can almost feel the hidden agendas flying and the conflicts of interest colliding in her canines.

    This article is toilet paper due to the impropriety, her lack of professionalism, the lack of adequate referencing and the generality of her professional jaundice. Unfortunately, the population, who are the real stakeholders in this issue, are being ignored in preference to a highly paid “band on the come” professionals who more than likely drink filtered water at home anyway.

    While the public should have the final say, they are being torpedoed by these so-called experts in Australia, notoriously and gratuitously paid off by THE FLUORIDE LOBBY. There is no real evidence, Karin. And there are no “real” statistics and the insiders all know that these conclusions arevsupported by hot air and methodologically fraudulent mathematics. That is, in realistic terms they are fictitious. P

    Dentist Alexander gives no facts, just fancies and innuendos; no references to speak of, just the absence of evidence in a delusion of grandeur that her office is important, since she is the head of a bunch of toothpatching doctor-type dentists.

    The pro-fluoride group have a desperate agenda as under no circumstances do they want to be cracked; the dental veneer of fools are their tools. They don’t care about tooth decay. The research in dental decay is completely false and cunningly fraudulent. And their experts at this because they been doing it for such a long time, and sadly it’s an ingrained superiority complex based on criminality.
    They will do anything and create any research out of their back pocket to get out of being caught. They are finding that it’s impossible to destabilize, ridicule and disgrace the growing number of eminent, sophisticated intellectuals and scientists who oppose the flu-o-ride.
    Inturn, they resort to the old political tricks. These cowards behind the scene are old scammers who get off on the control of people and that of the news. They make pay offs to publish and pay offs to keep off that which does not suit them.

    Irrespective of this being a pocket power game, they know that mandates of government often change and so they are very uncomfortable at the moment. They will get more fraudulent and desperate.

    The recent federal government inquiry is a total misrepresentation. It’s set up in such a way to fool and to fabricate. It constructed prefabricated levels of evidence in a convenient, self-serving way which purpously knocked out most of the important information which just happened to be anti-fluoride.

    Has anyone ever seen one of these inquiries, you know, how ‘sophisticated’ they work by commencing backwards, i.e., starting with the conclusion and just fooling around, filling the blanks, crossing summaries etc. You may probably think all that just doesn’t happen. Well, it does. it is a scientific assessment with their head up their ass and it is basic bullshit. Their eyes fixed to their jobs and lives styles and the fact that they don’t really care about the truth.

    Dentist Alexander depicts a persona that has no ethical aura or true sense of public responsibility. She’s trying to convince us that there is absolutely, and without any shade of doubt, no bad harmful effects of fluoridation or fluoride whatsoever.

    Well, Karin can not be a robot and one would assume that she hasn’t recently popped out of a nuthouse. And so the only conclusion I can come to is that it’s a pay off. I wonder how much money the dental Ass. get from the fluoride manufactures directly and indirectly.

  18. I returned to this site to reread and catch up on comments so far. I would like Ian Paul to look up the book I referenced in my previous post. In it, I recall an article in that book that showed a clear correlation between positive growth in dental income and the introduction of fluoride into water supplies. Why is this the case? It is because Fluoride case hardens teeth and makes them more susceptible to fracturing, which is expensive to repair, along with more sophisticated dental procedures of course which are more expensive. I agree with some comments here that fluoride tends to bring out the ‘nutters’ but Ithink another way of describing that is people who are extremely concerned with their health and perhaps become a bit obsessive about issues. When you consider that skeletal fluorisis is a by product of a lifetime of fluoride ingestion, I think people have a right to be concerned. I have the money to install a reverse osmosis system and avoid fluouride toothpastes. I am not against topical applications of fluoride but I think there are preferable alternatives. The main problem in this extended argument though is the PR and Marketing arms of entrenched interests in this debate. The only solution for individuals is to take steps themselves to avoid exposure but the expense is an unnecessary burden on many who are unable to afford these moves. Ultimately, it is a failure of our political representatives unfortunately who have not evaluated the facts properly and individuals have to take their own measures. The most telling arguments against it are the rejection by many other countries in Europe and around the world against its implementation.

  19. We have known for a long to that fluoridation is downright wrong so why are they still doing it? I learned something long ago, an observation, if something doesn’t make sense to you it is because you have left out an important factor, – MONEY

  20. Question – why would I accept advice about the dental benefits of water fluoridation from the head of an organisation that still advocates for the use of mercury in dental fillings and passes them off as ‘silver amalgams’? Over 30 different Canadian municipalities have voted to ban fluoride including Vancouver, Calgary, Windsor and Waterloo. Only around 30% of Canadians are exposed to fluoridated water.

    If you’d like to better understand the connection between dental health and diet (which has nothing to do with fluoridation) read Dr Weston Price’s book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. He first made a connection between dental health and traditional diets in the 1920’s & 30’s. It has everything to do with mineral health and exposure to processed foods such as sugar.

  21. Hmmm Karin Alexander refused to stop putting mercury in peoples mouths when the Australian government asked the ADA not to, 1 mercury filling emits 430Mcg a day into your body
    and the facts on fluoride are that it stops pancreatic and peroxide enzymes being formed and stops iodine being uptaken by the body leading to thyroid problems and brain cretinism 5 ppm per kilo of body weight can kill a person with kidney problems,

    again the American government ignored scientists pleas to stop fluoridating water

    maybe Karin would like to take a lie detector test to prove she is not working for the devil

    Karin is going to spend a long long time in hell but obviously she will feel more than comfortable there

    the question we have to ask ourselves is are these people connected to poisoning the public trying to incite a revolution.

  22. To all the anti-fluoride advocates , nutters, gummies

    What’s your problem??

    The Earth still not flat and Elvis still comprehensively “carked It”

    You may well be a child welfare problem -save up for your childrens’ dental bills or learn to speak “gummy” – that’s the dribbly dialect.


  23. JimB,
    A debate should be about facts and logic but your post does not even begin to address the facts already cited above. There is a wealth of information on and this mentions that <>. You imply that persons not ingesting Fluoride have no teeth (<> but the fact is that tooth decay rates <> and the FAN website goes on to point out that <>. The website also mentions the existence of 50 studies linking Fluoride with reduced IQ in children. The FAN website also mentions that many children are getting more than the recommended daily intake of Fluoride (setting aside arguments re whether there should be such a thing!) just from their use of toothpaste. I encourage you to check and keep an open mind.

    1. Re above, the information stripped out of the above was: That 97% of people in Western Europe drink water that is not fluoridated; That the use of the word Gummies is not appropriate as tooth decay rates have declined in non-fluoridated Europe just as much as in fluoridated USA and that this fact casts doubt on CDC claims that the reduction in tooth decay in USA has been due to fluoridation.

  24. How long will it be before OTHER things are added to water supplies under the “greater good” banner, without Public Consent?
    As a matter of record…I was born & raised in Northern NSW, on a Dairy Farm….have barely ever drunk Fluoridated water..(tank mostly)….am hovering around 60 yrs old…and DON’T have dentures.
    My parents did have them at an early did my grandparents.(But they also had Glasses)….SO what OTHER factors could have come into play???

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be published. All fields are required