On September 24, 2024, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California ruled that artificial water fluoridation presents an "unreasonable risk" to children's health. In particular, the court ruled that neurotoxic effects of water fluoridation have been linked to lowered IQs in children.
The Fluoride Action Network, a group of people opposed to artificial water fluoridation due to its toxicity and health dangers, began the lawsuit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2016.
This court ruling is another stepping stone in the 70+-year fight to stop the intentional addition of artificial fluoride to public water supplies, but it does not mean that artificial water fluoridation will now be halted by governments.
The addition of fluoride to water was proven carcinogenic in no fewer than three U.S. courts of law in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and yet, the practise has continued with many vocal (and terribly misguided) proponents ever since. Lawyer John Remington Graham successfully proved that artificial water fluoridation was carcinogenic in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas courts.
Court Case #1
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Aitkendead v. Borough of West View
Judge John Flaherty’s findings on November 16, 1978:
“Over the course of five months, the court held periodic hearings which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared the cancer mortality of 10 cities which fluoridated their water systems with 10 cities which did not fluoridate over a period of 28 years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities.”
Court Case #2
State of Illinois
Illinois Pure Water Committee v. Director of Public Health
Judge Ronald Niemann’s findings on February 24, 1982:
“[This legislation] exposes the public to the risk, uncertain in its scope, of unhealthy side effects of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, is unreasonable, and [is] a violation of the due process clause of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.” He added with disappointment, “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of public water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”
Accordingly, Judge Niemann entered a permanent injunction enjoining the State and its subdivisions from further implementation of fluoridation in Illinois.”
Court Case #3
Houston, Texas
Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston
Judge Anthony Farris’s ruling on May 24, 1982
“The court found:
[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man.”
The evidence
that was presented showing fluoride as a possible carcinogen included research
done by Dr. Alfred Taylor and by Dr. Dean Burk.
In Canada, artificial water fluoridation is unfortunately a widespread practise.
In August 2021, in the midst of Covid mayhem, the City Council in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada voted 10 to 1 to add fluoride to the city's water for the first time in history. Regina has historically had a majority opposed to water fluoridation, and the people had voted it down multiple times in the past. Regina was the last major city in Saskatchewan that did not fluoridate its water.
Coincidentally (not), just three months later, in November 2021, Calgary City Council in Calgary, Alberta, Canada voted to start adding fluoride to the city's water again. Calgary residents had successfully halted fluoridation for over a decade in the city, but this Council, in the midst of Covid madness, decided to sneak the vote through to resume fluoridation.
Residents of the cities were not given a vote on the matter.
Multiple delegations against fluoridation were presented to Regina City Council in 2021 and 2022, complete with extensive documentation and hundreds of studies showing fluoride's dangers and health harm. I presented as a delegate on December 15, 2022 as a fluoroquinolone antibiotic-injured person who was at extreme risk from even trace amounts of fluoride in the water. Nine out of 11 members of Regina City Council ignored all evidence of fluoride's harm and steamrolled forward with their plans to fluoridate in a vote the very next day, December 16, 2022. Mayor
My delegation to Regina City Council opposing water fluoridation and the allocation of budget dollars for fluoride infrastructure - December 15, 2022:
Video of my 5-Minute Verbal Delegation, as well as follow-up questions from City Councilor Landon Mohl
Part of my written delegation documents presented to Regina City Council:
"I'm requesting
that Regina City Council reverse the terribly misguided decision, voted on 10
to 1 in August 2021, to add fluoride to Regina's drinking water by 2025. I’m
also requesting that no funding be allocated to fluoridation or fluoride
infrastructure in the 2023 city budget or in any future budget.
Fluoride is
a known toxin and neurotoxin. It has been proven carcinogenic in at least three
U.S. courts of law.
People
should be aware that the type of fluoride being considered for our water
supply, Hydrofluorosilicic acid or HFSA, is not naturally-occurring calcium
fluoride. HFSA is artificial fluoride. It is actually an industrial waste
product most often sourced from phosphate fertilizer plants. HFSA is highly toxic
and highly corrosive. It has been shown to leach metals, particularly copper
and lead, out of water pipes. In one study, the addition of fluorosilicic acid
to the water caused lead levels to increase by 9 times.
Can City
Council guarantee that the addition of this highly-corrosive industrial waste
product will not result in increased contamination, particularly of lead, in
the water? This risk is, of course, of particular interest to the thousands of
homes in Regina that still have lead pipes.
Can City Council guarantee that the addition of HFSA will not require regular replacement of fluoride-corroded machinery, pipes, and hot water tanks, putting an even greater financial burden on the home owners and taxpayers of this city?
Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent
combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161813X07001404
“ABSTRACT
This study concerns effects on water-borne lead from combinations of chlorine (CL) or chloramines (CA) with fluosilicic acid (FSA) or sodium fluoride (NaF). CL is known to corrode brass, releasing lead from plumbing devices. It is known that CA and CL in different ratios with ammonia (NH) mobilize copper from brass, which we have found also enhances elution of lead from leaded brass alloys. Phase I involved leaded-brass 1/4 in. elbows pre-conditioned in DI water and soaked in static solutions containing various combinations of CL, CA, FSA, NaF, and ammonium fluosilicate. In Phase II 20 leaded-brass alloy water meters were installed in pipe loops. After pre-conditioning the meters with 200 flushings with 1.0 ppm CL water, seven different solutions were pumped for a period of 6 weeks. Water samples were taken for lead analysis three times per week after a 16-h stagnation period. In the static testing with brass elbows, exposure to the waters with CA + 50% excess NH3 + FSA, with CA and ammonium fluosilicate, and with CA + FSA resulted in the highest estimated lead concentrations. In the flow-through brass meter tests, waters with CL + FSA, with CL + NaF, and with CL alone produced the highest average lead concentration for the first 3-week period. Over the last 3 weeks the highest lead concentrations were produced by CL + NaF, followed by CL alone and CA + NH3 + FSA. Over the first test week (after CL flushing concentrations were increased from 1.0 to 2.0 ppm) lead concentrations nearly doubled (from about 100 to nearly 200 ppb), but when FSA was also included, lead concentrations spiked to over 900 ppb. Lead concentrations from the CL-based waters appeared to be decreasing over the study period, while for the CA + NH3 + FSA combination, lead concentrations seemed to be increasing with time.”
Children
have been shown to have higher lead concentrations in their blood if they drink
fluoridated water. These findings have been repeated in fluoride-exposed rats:
Fluoride
increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from
lead-exposed rats
Link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20188782/
“ABSTRACT
Higher
blood lead (BPb) levels have been reported in children living in communities
that receive fluoride-treated water. Here, we examined whether fluoride
co-administered with lead increases BPb and lead concentrations in calcified
tissues in Wistar rats exposed to this metal from the beginning of gestation.
We exposed female rats and their offspring to control water (Control Group),
100mg/L of fluoride (F Group), 30mg/L of lead (Pb Group), or 100mg/L of
fluoride and 30mg/L of lead (F+Pb Group) from 1 week prior to mating until
offspring was 81 days old. Blood and calcified tissues (enamel, dentine, and
bone) were harvested at day 81 for lead and fluoride analyses. Higher BPb
concentrations were found in the F+Pb Group compared with the Pb Group
(76.7+/-11.0microg/dL vs. 22.6+/-8.5microg/dL, respectively; p<0.001). Two-
to threefold higher lead concentrations were found in the calcified tissues in
the F+Pb Group compared with the Pb Group (all p<0.001). Fluoride
concentrations were similar in the F and in the F+Pb Groups. These findings
show that fluoride consistently increases BPb and calcified tissues Pb
concentrations in animals exposed to low levels of lead and suggest that a
biological effect not yet recognized may underlie the epidemiological association
between increased BPb lead levels in children living in water-fluoridated
communities.”
I am one of
the many people Regina City Council will harm if it goes ahead with the
ill-advised plan to fluoridate the water. I was injured and permanently
debilitated by a fluorine-infused antibiotic called Ciprofloxacin in 2009.
These antibiotics, called fluoroquinolones, have killed hundreds of thousands
of people and debilitated millions around the world over the past three+
decades. Fluorine is the root substance of fluoride, and it is highly toxic to
those who are sensitive to it. It is the reason central nervous system damage
is common in fluoroquinolone victims. You can find more information about the
dangers of fluorine-infused fluoroquinolone antibiotics here:
FLUOROQUINOLONES: THE DEADLIEST ANTIBIOTICS ON THE
MARKET?
Link: https://fluoridealert.org/news/fluoroquinolones-the-deadliest-antibiotics-on-the-market/
Due to
fluoroquinolone antibiotic toxicity, I have been left with severe chemical
sensitivities, liver and kidney problems, chronic inflammation, and
life-threatening allergies, among other issues. The ingestion/absorption of even
trace amounts of artificial fluoride in the city's water would be extremely
detrimental to my health, even catastrophic or deadly.
"People
who are fluoride/fluoroquinolone poisoned become, almost by definition,
hypersensitive to extremely small amounts, even trace exposures, of fluoride. In most
cases, as long as these exposures continue, symptoms will continue. Further,
people who are chemically sensitive as a result of exposure to other types of
poisons will commonly become hypersensitive also to trace amounts of fluoride,
a very effective poison."
Article: https://www.slweb.org/ftrcfluoroquinolone.html
Many
doctors to this day would insist that fluoroquinolone antibiotics and other
fluorine-infused drugs are perfectly safe. This is the same refrain we hear
from the people who want forced water fluoridation. I know personally that they
are incorrect on both fronts.
You must be
aware by now that the topical use of fluoridated toothpaste is enough fluoride
to harden teeth. If you are concerned about the state of Reginans oral health,
you could make fluoridated toothpaste, toothbrushes, and fluoridated mouth
rinses free to at-risk people, as well as using directed public education
campaigns about oral health.
Ingestion
of fluoride in water has been shown in multiple studies to have either no
effect on cavities or very little effect on cavities. The risk of health harm
from water fluoridation far outweighs any perceived benefits.
From the Newsweek article, “Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows,” by Douglas Main, published June 29, 2015:
Link: https://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
"The
Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their
comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of
scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently
set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study
done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the
collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers.
Then they analyzed these studies' results, and published their conclusion in a
review earlier this month.
The review
identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be
included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the
population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce
cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study
co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester
University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies
worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975."
Major 10-Year UK Fluoridation Study Finds Much Smaller Benefits And Much Higher Costs Than Prior Claims
Direct link to study: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/phr/SHMX1584/#/plain-english-summary
Again, we see that drinking fluoridated water saves only 0.3 of a cavity
in the lifetime of the person. There was only a 4% difference when
comparing children with cavities who drank fluoridated water versus
those that did not. The claims that fluoridation
"help poor children who don't brush their teeth regularly" have also
been disproven here. It was found that poor and working class kids brush
their teeth just as regularly as wealthier kids. (I know I grew up
working class and was taught to brush twice a day
religiously...)
"The study compared children from two parts of Cumbria, one with
artificial fluoridation (averaging about 0.9 mg/L), and the other
without. Five year olds with fluoridation since birth had only about 0.3
fewer cavities or fillings in their baby teeth than the
non-fluoridated children. Only 4% fewer were caries-free. For permanent
teeth in 11 year olds, the difference in cavities or fillings was even
lower, with only about 0.2 fewer in those with fluoridation from age 5
to 11, compared to non-fluoridated children
who never had fluoridation. The meager benefit in permanent teeth
resulted in only 3% fewer caries-free children among the 11 year olds.
The study also failed to show any significant extra reduction in caries
for deprived children, so fluoridation did not
reduce disparities...
Besides finding only very modest benefits on average, the CATFISH study
results also undermine the claim of fluoridation proponents that
fluoridation helps poor children the most. The study found no
significantly better results in the most deprived compared
to the least deprived children. Fluoridation proponents sometimes make
the paternalistic argument that poorer children do not use fluoridated
toothpaste as much as wealthier children and therefore need fluoridation
which doesn’t require any effort from the
children. The CATFISH study undermines this argument two ways: by
finding no greater benefit in the poorest children and by finding they
brushed their teeth as much as wealthier children."
Fluoride is
difficult to remove from water once it has been added. Even the best water
filters on the market cannot guarantee 100% removal. Fluoride can also be
absorbed through water used for showering, bathing, swimming, and washing
dishes.
Thousands of Reginans cannot afford to buy filtered water or expensive water filtration systems, so forced water fluoridation disproportionately harms low-income people.
Fluoride accumulates in the body over time. This means that even tiny doses can accumulate and cause health damage. People with kidney or liver dysfunction or other detoxification problems are at an increased risk for toxic fluoride accumulation in the body.
People at greater risk of health damage from water fluoridation include:
- fetuses and babies, as well as pregnant mothers
- children
- people with arthritis, joint problems, or skeletal or dental fluorosis
- people with thyroid dysfunction
- people with endocrine disruption
- people with chemical sensitivities
- people who have been injured by fluorine-infused pharmaceuticals or have a family history of these types of injuries
- people with ADHD, autism, or other cognitive issues linked to chemical toxicity
- people with cognitive decline
- people with diabetes or blood sugar regulation problems
- people with sensitive kidneys or kidney dysfunction
- people with hindered detoxification
- people with a personal or family history of heart disease
- people with a personal or family history of cancer
You do not
have the right to force all Reginans to consume an industrial waste product - a
product that has been used as a pesticide to kill rats and mice - every day in
their drinking water, to cook with it and bathe in it, under a misguided idea
that you are improving public health. You are not improving public health, and
the addition of fluoride to Regina's water would actually be hugely detrimental
to the health and well-being of many vulnerable residents, myself included.
I'm very
surprised that Regina City Council could be ignorant of the almost 2,000 studies
showing harm from fluoride exposure. Fluoride exposure
has been linked to health damage and to the exacerbation of underlying health
conditions including: arthritis and joint pain, kidney dysfunction, thyroid
dysfunction, endocrine disruption, cardiovascular damage, softening and
de-mineralizing of the bones (osteomalacia), increase in bone fractures,
skeletal and dental fluorosis, neurotoxicity and cognitive effects,
gastrointestinal disorders, calcification of the pineal gland, blood glucose
regulation problems, cancer, oxidative stress, and reproductive damage, among
others.
I have
included links to many of these studies showing harm from fluoride at the end
of this document, and they have already been directly submitted to each Council
member, including by paper copy.
We have
known that fluoride is a carcinogen since the late 1970s and early 1980s.
During that period of time, lawyer John Remington Graham successfully argued in
three United States courts of law (Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas) that
fluoride is carcinogenic. Three judges agreed in their rulings that he had
proven that case. Please see the supplemental documents from John Graham that
have been included with this delegation information.
It should
be known that there is no scientific or medical consensus on the effectiveness
or safety of long-term fluoride ingestion. Many dentists and doctors worldwide
oppose water fluoridation, including Dr. Hardy Limeback, a dentist of four
decades and former head of preventative dentistry at the University of Toronto.
Dr. Limeback speaks against water fluoridation, calling it “unsafe,
ineffective, and immoral.”
When I
asked Dr. Limeback to speak as a delegation on this issue, he declined, saying,
“There is enough
evidence of harm from fluoridation. Cities ignore it at their own risk. There
will be future toxic torts." And by that, he means lawsuits.
Fluoride has particularly been shown to have neuro-toxic effects on children.
This
outlines the findings of one of the studies:
IMPACT OF FLUORIDE ON NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN CHILDREN
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
"In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health
(HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27
studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect
cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that
this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on
the developing brain is warranted...
The
average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of
0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly
used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.* Some studies suggested that
even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus,
children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those
who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of
age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development
may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of
compensating for the toxicity.
“Fluoride
seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain
drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the
combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the
brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”"
Since
most of the fluoridated water would run down the drain (quite literally washing
taxpayers’ dollars down the drain), the environmental impacts of this toxin and
neurotoxin being added to the water are also very negative.
A study published
in 2022 showed negative effects on plants from
fluoride pollution in the soil. Higher fluoride levels in the soil showed
significantly reduced plant height and number of leaves, particularly at early
growth stages. The plants also showed increased leaf injury, and this injury
coincided with increased infestations of powdery mildew.
Effects of soil fluoride pollution on
wheat growth and biomass production, leaf injury index, powdery mildew
infestation and trace metal uptake
Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35007676/
In light of the known negative effects on
plant growth, fluoridated water is not safe for watering gardens in the city.
Run-off of fluoridated water will have negative effects on wetlands, waterways,
and surrounding farmland.
At least
95% of the world's countries do not fluoridate their water. In fact, many
countries have banned the use of fluoride in water supplies because it is
ineffective and toxic. These countries include China, Austria, Belgium,
Finland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Hungary, and Japan.
Reginans
have voted "No" on fluoride four times in the past. In light of this history,
it is impossible that 90% of Reginans now want artificial fluoride added to
their water, yet we had 90% of Regina City Councilors voting "Yes" on
fluoride in August 2021. This means the city's elected representatives do not
represent the real residents of Regina or the true people’s will.
No
one has
the right to poison or harm other people. No one has the right to risk
anyone's health or life for a misguided public health crusade. City
Council cannot
force Reginans to ingest and absorb a known toxin and neurotoxin against
their
will. City Council also cannot force Reginans to pay for water
fluoridation
against their will with their tax dollars.
The known
dangers of fluoride exposure far outweigh any perceived benefits. In light of
the huge health risk, including to some of Regina’s most vulnerable residents,
Regina City Council must not allocate any budget dollars for water fluoridation
or for fluoride infrastructure.
Pro-fluoride
members of Regina City Council will be held accountable for the damage done to
the people of this city if this decision is not reversed. This could extend to
legal liability. If any of you are God-fearing people, you must understand that
you will be held accountable for putting a known poison and neurotoxin into the
water supply.
Links to
hundreds of studies showing health harm from fluoride exposure follow at the
end of this document.
Do the right thing and scrap the plan to fluoridate the water in Regina."
Hundreds of Studies Showing Health Harm from Fluoride Exposure
Some of My Anti-Fluoride Postering Efforts - Regina, SK
