Dear Dr. Dumbass
I receive a lot of mail, and most of it is fairly complimentary. However, sometimes I get flames, and most often it is from someone who has an ax to grind about amalgam or another dental material which I advocate. I present here an example of one which is unique because the writer makes a lot of claims against fluoride which are fairly common in conspiracy theorist circles. I am much indebted to him for giving me the opportunity to rebut each of his claims with appropriate links to prove my case.
I call this letter: Dear Doctor Dumb Ass
Both elemental fluorine and fluoride ions are highly toxic.
Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities of fluoride – millions of tons – were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S atomic bomb program–both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal. Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide “evidence useful in litigation” against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens.
Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.
Further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males.
Earlier studies had found a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities.
Opaque white spots and brown ugly teeth caused by fluoride is called Fluorosis. Fluorosis currently affects one out of five or more children in this nation although it is rarely seen in California. California is the least fluoridated state with less than 16% of the population drinking artificially fluoridated water.
Fluoride is not effective in reducing tooth decay. No correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries.
The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof of safety or effectiveness. The FDA does not consider fluoride an essential nutrient.
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified Fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.
THE POINT IS DOCTOR DUMB ASS ANY FLUORIDE POISON!!!!!!!!!
My correspondent’s observations are in Bold and italics
My replies are indented and in Normal print
“Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities of fluoride – millions of tons – were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.“
Fluoride is used in an intermediate step in the processing of of U-235, the radioactive metal used in nuclear reactors and in atom bombs. Uranium hexafluoride is a gas. This gas is placed in a very expensive gas centrifuge and the U-235 is separated from U-238 because of a very marginal difference in the mass of the two isotopes. Once the uranium hexafluoride containing the correct isotope is separated from the others, it is further processed to form pure metallic uranium-235 which is the active ingredient in both nuclear reactors and in nuclear weapons. During this processing step, all the fluoride is removed. There is no fluoride in the nuclear fuel used in either atomic bombs, or in nuclear reactors. Finally, the fluoride used during processing is recycled and reused in refining new batches of uranium-235
The mythology that somehow fluoride is involved in the lethality of nuclear weapons goes back to a newspaper article written by Chris Bryson & Joel Griffiths, and commissioned by the Christian Science Monitor in the spring of 1997.
The Monitor is a reputable publication and they stake their reputation on the integrity of the material they print. The authors made clear that the information in the article was based on “hundreds of declassified documents”. Unfortunately, if there ever were any documents, they apparently did not prove the thesis of the article, because the Christian Science Monitor who paid for the article refused to publish it. Furthermore, you will not find a link to any of these documents anywhere on the web, including on the most ardent antifluoridationist site. (Note that every link on my page connects directly to an independent source, most of them to government sites which can be verified by looking for the .gov domain in the address bar at the top of your browser.)
The article itself centers on a series of 1944 lawsuits against the E.I. du Pont du Nemours Company chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey. The factory was then producing fluoride for the Manhattan project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world’s first atomic bomb. The suits asserted that there was a massive industrial release of toxic fluoride compounds into the local environment, and the government was responsible because it held the contract. The article tries to draw a link between:
- The atomic bomb
- Stonewalling by the government
- The injuries to persons and property by a massive industrial release of toxic fluoride compounds
- Fluoridation of municipal water supplies as a public health measure
Q. One of these things does not belong with the others. Can you guess which one?
A. The concentration of fluoride added to municipal water supplies is minute in comparison to the amount that would be required to produce the toxicity alleged in the lawsuits. Furthermore, fluoride in municipal water systems has absolutely nothing to do with atomic bombs! Finally, the fluoride compound released in the industrial accident (Hydrofluoric acid [HF]) was altogether different, and violently more corrosive than the fluoride compounds used in municipal water systems (Sodium fluoride [NaF], Fluorosilicic acid [H2SiF6], and Sodium fluorosilicate [Na2SiF6] )
Antifluoridationists claim that the Bryson/Griffiths article is the most censored article in the US. However, the facts don’t support this contention since the article is reprinted on huge numbers of antifluoridationist websites. You can find the article featured, or referred to, on about 35,300 sites (at time of this writing) just by Googling the authors’ names;
“Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide “evidence useful in litigation” against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens.”
As a matter of fact, Dr. H Trendley Dean and a team from the US public health service had spent ten years studying the effects of naturally occurring fluoride on the dental health of 7000 children in four southwestern states from 1931 until 1941. While the team’s emphasis was on determining the effects of fluoride on teeth, they observed no ill effects on overall health caused by the differing concentrations of fluoride in the drinking water of the various populations they studied. It was Dr Dean and his team that established the optimum fluoride concentration for cavity prevention without fluorosis at 1 ppm (parts per million). It is likely that the government called on scientists involved in that study to defend itself in the 1944 litigation against the E.I. du Pont du Nemours Company. It is also possible that some of those scientists were later involved in the development of the atomic bomb. However, the observations made by Dean and his team had already established the safety and efficacy of low concentrations of fluoride in drinking water well before the invention of the atomic bomb or the chemical spill that caused the lawsuit. (The atomic bomb project only began in 1939 and remained top secret until 1945.)
The first public health experiment in the use of intentionally fluoridated water was carried out in 1945 in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Grand Rapids was paired with the city of Muskegon, Michigan which received no fluoride in their water. The experiment was performed to see whether deliberate addition of fluoride at 1 ppm to a water supply that had little natural fluoride would provide the same benefits as had been observed in the 1931 – 1941 study. Over a period of ten years, the children of Grand Rapids developed 60% fewer cavities than the children of Muskegon. During the same period, other paired cities were selected to widen the experiment. All showed the same results.
No adverse health effects were noted during this experiment, and as the results of this experiment began to leak out, even before the official results were released, neighboring cities began their own fluoridation programs. This effect snowballed until today approximately 65% of all US citizens drink water from municipal water supplies that are fluoridated at 1 ppm.
“Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.“
Wrong!! Nothing could be further from the truth! (actually, I think he meant unequivocal)
The National Cancer Institute has the following on their web page: (click here to see the actual page). Many studies, in both humans and animals, have shown no association between fluoridated water and risk for cancer.
Further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males.
In April 2006, a preliminary study was published that observed an association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma in young males . No apparent association was found in females. (Bassin EB, Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma) The author acknowledges that this study has limitations and further research is required to confirm or refute this observation. Go to the New Jersey Dept. of health website and see if you can find any reference to osteosarcoma.
“The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings (Douglass et al., 2006).”
“The weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma.”
The New Jersey Department of Health website does not cite this study. The only mention I could find of a link between bone cancer and fluoride using the search function on their website was this one:
Exposure to fluoride was linked to osteosarcoma in male rats, but epidemiologic studies have generally not supported this finding. (Click here to go to their website and see if YOU can find anything that even remotely suggests this!)
The New Jersey Department of Health issues numerous hazardous substance fact sheets on fluoride compounds. There are all sorts of fact sheets which can be accessed here. They refer only to corrosive compounds of fluoride, none of which are used in the fluoridation of any consumable product or municipal water systems. They are released in industrial processes and are toxic when contacting skin or breathed into the lungs in high concentration. They are listed as corrosive chemicals, and I have been unable to find any that are actually listed as carcinogens (cancer causing substances).
All this is beside the point, however, because NONE of these substances are used in either water or toothpaste.
- Toothpaste uses only
- Sodium fluoride
- Stannous Fluoride
- Three compounds are used in water fluoridation are:
- sodium fluoride
- fluorosilicic acid
- sodium fluorosilicate
Furthermore, all of the fact sheets for the hazardous substances state quite plainly: “This effect does NOT occur at the level of fluoride in water for preventing cavities in teeth.”
The National Cancer Institute addresses the cancer question specifically (Click here to go to the site itself). There is a LOT of good info on this site.
In a February 1991 Public Health Service (PHS) report, the agency said it found no evidence of an association between fluoride and cancer in humans. The report, based on a review of more than 50 human epidemiological (population) studies produced over the past 40 years, concluded that optimal fluoridation of drinking water “does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans” as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date (4).
In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report, scientists at the National Cancer Institute evaluated the relationship between the fluoridation of drinking water and the number of deaths due to cancer in the United States during a 36-year period, and the relationship between water fluoridation and number of new cases of cancer during a 15-year period. After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water (5).
In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer (5). A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The report concluded that studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer (2).
In any case, since fluoride has been in widespread use in the US since the mid 1940’s, if there were a link with any form of cancer, someone someplace (besides the antifluoridationists) would have noticed an epidemic of cancer in areas where there is a high naturally occurring concentration of fluoride in the local water supply, or at least a major difference in cancer rates between the 65% of Americans living in fluoridated communities and those who live in non-fluoridated communities. Nothing of the sort has been noticed.
“Earlier studies had found a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities.”
I am unable to find ANY studies that show this. I refer you instead to the following US Government links:
The ADA Fluoride Fact Sheet which gives detailed information on all the scientific studies carried out since 1945 when Fluoride was first introduced into community water supplies.
“Since community water fluoridation was introduced in 1945, more than 50 epidemiologic studies in different populations and at different times have failed to demonstrate an association between fluoridation and the risk of cancer.”
(The CDC is the US government agency responsible for tracking any and all disease processes that affect the population. They keep statistics on all epidemiological problems including sicknesses caused by widespread use of toxic materials.)
“Opaque white spots and brown ugly teeth caused by fluoride is called Fluorosis.”
I can’t argue with this one, however the truth is that fluorosis in children’s teeth is not due to the fluoride in the water system. There is an old saying that “The dose makes the poison”. Fluoride in municipal water systems is titrated to 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million (ppm). It has been shown that very prolonged intake of water with fluoride at or above 4 ppm may cause fluorosis in a minority of children, but at levels of less than 2 ppm, there is no fluorosis. In this respect the fluoride ion is similar to many other substances, such as vitamin D, that are harmful in large amounts but are harmless or beneficial in small amounts. So why do so many children seem to have fluoride spots on their teeth? It turns out that unsupervised children will swallow large amounts of fluoridated toothpaste because it tastes like candy to them. This is what causes the white fluorosis spots you see in many children’s teeth. These spots show up all over the country, even in areas where there is no fluoride in the drinking water.
“Fluorosis currently affects one out of five or more children in this nation although it is rarely seen in California. California is the least fluoridated state with less than 16% of the population drinking artificially fluoridated water.“
Wrong on all counts
Actually, if you want statistics on ANY health issue, go to the US government agency which is tasked with the job. The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC) keeps fluoridation statistics on this page. California does rank low in percentage of fluoridated towns, but it is by no means the lowest. Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Hawaii and Utah rank MUCH lower in percentage of the population living in fluoridated areas. The percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water in California is not 16%, but a bit over 27%. On the other hand, 65% of all Americans live in areas with fluoridated municipal water supplies.
No official government agency keeps statistics on the incidence of fluorosis, however you should read the US CDC report on fluorosis which asks, among other questions:
In which communities can enamel fluorosis be found?
Enamel fluorosis occurs among some persons in all communities, even in communities with a low natural concentration of fluoride and no fluoride in the municipal drinking water.
The reason for this is that most dental fluorosis in the US is caused by the unsupervised use of high fluoride toothpastes by small children who tend to swallow the toothpaste rather than spit it out. Between birth and about the age of six, the crowns of the adult teeth are developing. While small amounts of fluoride, such as that found in water systems, is helpful because it is incorporated into the tooth enamel making it harder and somewhat less prone to decay later in life, large amounts can cause deformation and discoloration of the enamel. The amount of fluoride in the average fluoride containing toothpaste is vastly greater than the daily intake of fluoride in any municipal water system.
From my own experience, the most fluorosis I have seen was in the Los Angeles suburbs, although Los Angeles is not unique in this respect. There seems to be a correlation between family income and the level of fluorosis. From my own observations, more fluorosis is found in children from high income areas than in low income areas. The reverse can be said about the incidence of tooth decay.
This section has been reproduced from the previous page because it enlarges on the subject of fluorosis and demonstrates in no uncertain terms just how much fluoride one can imbibe from sources other than fluoridated water supplies, and how much it takes to cause actual physical sickness.
In 2013, a 47-year-old Michigan woman visited the doctor because she had been experiencing pain in her lower back, arms, legs and hips for the last five years. It turns out that she had developed skeletal fluorosis, a condition in which bone density increases due to extreme fluoride intake. Under normal circumstances, bone is constantly being remodeled as the body removes the hydroxyapatite (the hard material in bones) in areas in which it is not needed for support, and then replaces it in areas where the bone needs extra strength. Skeletal fluorosis causes the body to deposit fluoroapetite in bone instead of the normal hydroxyapatite, and since it is denser and harder than hydroxyapatite, the body has a difficult time removing it from the areas where it is no longer needed. Even so, it keeps reinforcing the bone in other high stress areas anyway.
Our lady had acquired this problem because she had been drinking a large pitcher of tea every day of her life for the last 17 years. Furthermore, the tea had been made using 100 tea bags per pitcher. Recent analyses have revealed an average fluoride content of 17.25 mg per tea bag or cup in black tea and 22 mg per tea bag or cup in green tea. 100 tea bags comes up to around 2 full grams of fluoride ingested per day! (Compare that with the 0.7 to 1.2 mg of fluoride per liter in fluoridated municipal water supplies. In order to ingest 2 grams of fluoride by drinking fluoridated municipal water, a person would have to drink between 417 and 714 gallons of water!)
The lady’s treatment, however, consisted of simply stopping the intake of the tea. In countries like China and India where this problem is endemic, simply eliminating the source of the fluoride cures the problem because excess fluoride is typically eliminated from the body by the kidneys. Over the course of three to fiveyears, the fluoroapetite is eliminated from the body and the bone becomes normal again.
“Fluoride is not effective in reducing tooth decay. No correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries.“
Wrong again. Antigo Wisconsin began water fluoridation in June 1949 and ceased adding fluoride to its water in November of 1960. This was done in response to criticism from anti fluoridationists. After five and one half years without optimal levels of fluoride, second grade children had over 200% more decay, fourth graders 70% more, and sixth graders 91% more than those of the same ages in 1960. Residents of Antigo reinstituted water fluoridation in October, 1965 on the basis of severe deterioration of their children’s’ oral health.
Please see this excellent PDF “Fluoridation facts” for 70 pages which address every criticism found on the anti fluoridationist websites.
The CDC Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States has this to say: (And I urge EVERYONE seriously concerned about water fluoridation to read this authoritative report.
Fluoride’s ability to inhibit or even reverse the initiation and progression of dental caries is well documented. The first use of adjusted fluoride in water for caries control began in 1945 and 1946 in the United States and Canada, when the fluoride concentration was adjusted in the drinking water supplying four communities (2–5). The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) developed recommendations in the 1940s and 1950s regarding fluoride concentrations in public water supplies. At that time, public health officials assumed that drinking water would be the major source of fluoride for most U.S. residents. The success of water fluoridation in preventing and controlling dental caries led to the development of fluoride-containing products, including toothpaste (i.e., dentifrice), mouthrinse, dietary supplements, and professionally applied or prescribed gel, foam, or varnish. In addition, processed beverages, which constitute an increasing proportion of the diets of many U.S. residents (6,7), and food can contain small amounts of fluoride, especially if they are processed with fluoridated water. Thus, U.S. residents have more sources of fluoride available now than 50 years ago.
The prevalence and severity of dental caries in the United States have decreased substantially during the preceding 3 decades (39). National surveys have reported that the prevalence of any dental caries among children aged 12–17 years declined from 90.4% in 1971–1974 to 67% in 1988–1991; severity (measured as the mean number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth) declined from 6.2 to 2.8 during this period (40–43).
“The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof of safety or effectiveness.“
The US Food and Drug Administration makes the following recommendation for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the U.S.
“Widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries (i.e., tooth decay) in the United States and other economically developed countries. When used appropriately, fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and controlling dental caries. All U.S. residents are likely exposed to some degree of fluoride, which is available from multiple sources.” (Summary section, page 1)”Community water fluoridation is a safe, effective, and inexpensive way to prevent dental caries. This modality benefits persons in all age groups and of all SES, ….” (Recommendation section, page 24)Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General (2000):
“Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing dental caries in both children and adults. Water fluoridation benefits all residents served by community water supplies regardless of their social or economic status. Professional and individual measures, including the use of fluoride mouth rinses, gels, dentifrices, and dietary supplements and the application of dental sealants, are additional means of preventing dental caries.” (Executive summary)Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks (Public Health Service, 1991):
“Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoride areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly evident.” (Conclusions section, page 87)
“The FDA does not consider fluoride an essential nutrient.“
He’s got me here. He’s right about fluoride not being an essential nutrient. But then neither is penicillin or Lipitor. If you could take a pill for ten years with the result that it makes you less likely to get a serious disease for the rest of your life, wouldn’t you take it? Tooth decay is the most prevalent disease in the world. I was born in 1947, before municipal water fluoridation became widespread. I also have a mouth full of fillings. My son was born in 1971. He hasn’t had a cavity for 40 years (and he used to drink regular Coca-Cola all the time). He also had the benefit of fluoride since he was a baby.
“The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified Fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.“
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology is not a respected academic or government affiliated website. It is a great example of an antiamalgamist/antifluoridationist construction. It was created specifically to advance health conspiracies, and you will find numerous similar examples all over the web. They always choose an official sounding name that sounds like it is affiliated with the government, the UN or an academic institution, but the people who write them are devoted to spreading unsubstantiated health conspiracies. For more on assessing conspiracy websites see my page on dental amalgam.
Further objections to fluoride not covered in the Dr. Dumbass letter
Dentists make lots of money pushing fluoride
Actually, dentists make the vast majority of their money repairing and replacing teeth damaged by tooth decay, as well as the ravages of gum disease. They make substantially less from their hygiene departments, which are dedicated to preventing tooth decay and gum disease. Fluoride is part of the method by which we prevent tooth decay. Furthermore, the amount of money that patients spend on fluoride applications is infinitesimal in comparison to the amount they spend on other dental services. Modern cases of fluorosis are fairly mild, and in my own experience, I treat very few of them. The vast majority of Lumineers® and esthetic bonding is placed because patients want to correct the arrangement and shape of their teeth, as well as the darkening that happens as a result of normal ageing.
Fluoride causes thyroid and parathyroid problems
False! “In an effort to determine if fluoride in drinking water affects the function, shape or size of the thyroid gland, researchers conducted a study comparing one group of people who consumed water containing natural fluoride levels of 3.48 ppm and one group of persons who consumed water with extremely low fluoride levels of 0.09 ppm. The researchers noted that all study participants had been residents of their respective communities for more than 10 years. The researchers concluded that prolonged ingestion of fluoride at levels above optimal to prevent dental decay had no effect on thyroid gland size or function. This conclusion was consistent with earlier animal studies.” Click here to download the PDF which discusses this.
There are a number of self appointed “public health advocates” who strongly believe that their thyroid problems were caused by the presence of fluoride in their diets. Many of them write popular articles, maintain websites and site numerous authorities who state flatly that fluoride directly affects the thyroid gland. These people are simply misguided.
Fluoride is a member of the halide family of elements. (See halogens in Wikipedia.) Other halides include chlorine, bromine and iodine. Iodine is an essential element for thyroid health and is used by the thyroid gland to manufacture the thyroid hormone thyroxin. This important hormone is involved in regulation of the body’s basal metabolism. Because they are members of the same chemical family, there is a belief among the lay public that all the halides must have an affinity for the thyroid in the same way as iodine. Their reasoning goes something like this: “After all, iodine, bromine and chlorine are all disinfectants. Maybe all the halides are able to incorporate themselves into the functions of the thyroid as well.” In fact this is NOT the case. The atoms of the different halogens all have vastly differing atomic weights, and neither fluoride, chlorine nor bromine can “fit” into the biological molecular structures designed by nature to interact with iodine. In very high concentrations, all four halogens can be poisonous to numerous bodily functions, but in low concentrations, only iodine can interact directly with the thyroid gland.
The large majority of studies , cited on the anti-fluoridation websites accusing fluoride of being thyrotoxic are NOT peer reviewed or published in mainstream journals. The ones that are in mainstream journals do not accuse fluoride of having any direct effect on the thyroid. (Yes, I’ve looked them up on the web.) There is no evidence anywhere that in concentrations used in municipal water supplies, fluoride will have any permanent detrimental effects on either the thyroid or parathyroid glands.
Finally, 65% of the citizens in the US live in areas with fluoridated municipal water supplies. There is NO evidence that there is any difference in the health status between those people and persons living in areas with no fluoride in their water supply.
“Grand Rapids Michigan, the longest fluoridated city in the USA, needs almost twice as many Dentists as the national average, (120 per 100, 000.) and if fluoride is so successful, why is Grand Rapids considering removing such a wonder drug?“
Dentists do not set up business in areas where there is more dental disease. They set up businesses in areas where the citizens can afford expensive dentistry. Grand Rapids is a very large and wealthy city. (See my page on How dentists set their fees). Since the advent of fluoride, there is a great deal less decay to repair, and consequently fewer missing teeth. If there isn’t as much money in basic dentistry, there will always be lots of money in catering to people’s esthetic needs. Dentists, like any small business people, go where the money is. People in big cities can afford more expensive dentistry! This is true for physicians as well. There are more than twice as many doctors of all kinds in large metropolitan areas than there are in rural areas. The same is true for Boston, Detroit, New York, Los Angeles and all large cities. There are proportionately fewer dentists and physicians in smaller cities, especially in cities in which the citizens are less “well off”.
Grand Rapids is NOT “considering” removing fluoride from their municipal water supply. Just like in any area of the country, there is always an active anti-fluoridation lobby, and there are always bills before legislatures in various cities all over the USA trying to legislate laws outlawing fluoride, amalgam, artificial sweeteners, and various foods and food additives. Grand Rapids is a special focus of antifluoridationists since it was the first city to institute municipal water fluoridation as a public health measure. Grand Rapids is no closer to doing away with municipal fluoridation than is New York.
Water fluoridation is banned in Europe
False: The claim that water fluoridation is banned in Europe is frequently used by fluoridation opponents. In truth, European countries construct their own water quality regulations within the framework of the 1980 European water quality directive. The directive provides maximum admissible concentrations for many substances, one of which is fluoride. The directive does not require or prohibit fluoridation. It merely requires that the fluoride concentration in water does not exceed the maximum permissible concentration.
Ireland and the United Kingdom are in fact fluoridated, while France and Switzerland rely on fluoride supplementation of salt (similar to the way salt in the US is supplemented with iodine). Basil Switzerland ceased water fluoridation in 1963 principally because trade barriers that had prevented fluoridated salt from being sold there were dismantled, and the combination of fluoridated salt and fluoridated water would have raised the national fluoride intake above recommended levels. Approximately 10% of the population of Spain receives fluoridated water. The Czech republic uses fluoridated salt.
Water and salt fluoridation in Europe is decided on a country by country basis. Arguments against national fluoridation revolve mostly around libertarian arguments regarding personal freedom of choice. There is no water fluoridation in Austria, Belgium, Germany or Croatia.
Although water fluoridation is not carried out in Sweden, Denmark, Finland or the Netherlands, these countries support the World Health Organizations regarding fluoridation as a preventive measure in addition to the use of fluoride toothpastes, mouth rinses and dietary fluoride supplements.
Australia now has fluoridation in all states and territories. Brazil and Chile also fluoridate their water. About half the population of New Zealand drinks fluoridated water. Canada leaves fluoridation decisions up to the local authorities, but about 45% of the population there receives fluoride in municipal water supplies.
Please see this link to debunk all the other nonsense seen on antifluoridationist sites.