Yes. Fluoride is an acute toxin with a rating higher than that of lead.

According to “Clinical Toxicology of Commercial products,” 5th Edition, 1984, lead is given a toxicity rating of 3 to 4, and Fluoride is rated at 4 (3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic

Fluoride used in water fluoridation is also a toxic waste product — which means it contains other heavy metals. It is the most bone seeking element known to mankind. There is research on the internet that stated that fluoride makes bones more brittle and dental enamel more porous.

Current total intake is now estimated to be between 5 and 7 mg/day in “optimally fluoridated” areas. Current fluoride intake is equally divided between drinking water (in fluoridated areas), food, other beverages, and dental products, meaning that even if you don’t live in a fluoridated area, fluoride is endangering your health. Average fluoride content in juices is 0.02 to 2.80 parts per million, in part because of variations in fluoride concentrations of water used in production.

Children’s ingestion of fluoride from juices and juice-flavored beverages can be substantial and a crucial factor in developing fluorosis. Grape juice has been found to contain up to 6.8 mg/L of fluoride, a can of chicken soup up to 4 mg of fluoride.

Fluoride can be found in water, toothpaste, mouthwash, Dentist’s treatment, fluoride pills, juice, soft drinks, canned food, commercial fruit and vegetables, Teflon and Tefal coated items (such as frying pans), etc. (Note: No “optimal” fluoride intake has ever been scientifically documented.)

As little as 0.04 mg/kg of body weight per day has been proven to cause adverse health effects. Retention of 2 mg a day will produce crippling skeletal fluorosis in one’s lifetime.


Yes. Approximately half of each day’s fluoride intake will be retained. This is what makes it so dangerous. “The dose makes the poison.” All sides agree to the fact that healthy kidneys can eliminate only about 50% of daily fluoride intake. The rest gets stored in calcified tissues, like bones and teeth.

The National Academy Of Sciences (NAS) stated in 1977 that, for the average individual, a retention of 2 mg/day would result in crippling skeletal fluorosis after 40 years. Considering the above mentioned intake level, it is likely that skeletal fluorosis already affects many millions of people around the world.

Most often as a byproduct from the fertilizer, aluminum and other industries, who manage to sell this toxic waste to municipalities nationwide for human consumption — incredible, but a fact.

Studies show that adults can absorb up to 0.5 mg per “TV ribbon” brushing. Small children, even if pea-size amount is used, will still absorb the same, more if the child is younger and has less swallowing control skills. Half a tube of toothpaste can kill a child. Current content of sodium fluoride in toothpaste in Canada and the US is up to 0.4% = 4000 ppm (parts per million). Bubblegum-flavored dentifrice obviously is especially inviting for children. Since April 1997 all toothpaste in the US must carry a warning label, advising parents what to do if their child swallows more than the pea-size brushing amount. Wholesale containers carry the poison symbol of skull and crossbones.
What about the fluoride treatment at the dental office?

Fluoride treatments can contain between 10,000 to 20,000 ppm. There is no regulated dose requirement. There are cases known of children dying in the dentist’s chair. (New York Times, Jan.20, 1979: “$750,000 Given in Child’s Death in Fluoride Case” about a three year old child killed by fluoride treatment in the Dentist’s office.)

By receiving limited training on the subject and being misinformed on purpose by the U.K Dental Association. Figures in ADA pamphlets contain an incredible amount of untruths, and outright fraudulent claims. If you check the references cited and numbers listed in your local libraries, you will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion. Some fluoridation endorsements are listed which prove fraudulent when checked.

Most dentists never bother to take the time to study both sides of the fluoride issue.
“Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non-participation is overt neglect of personal responsibility.”

There are NO reliable studies, conducted under ethical research guidelines, which prove the benefits of fluoride supplementation. The FDA admits this! There are more than 500 peer-reviewed studies documenting the adverse effects. Furthermore, dentists make higher profits in fluoridated areas and through fluoride use. As a result of mottled enamel, many more restorative measures are necessary, such as braces, bridges, etc.

For all practicing Dental Associations, this condition is a real money-maker, because cosmetic dentistry is far more lucrative than cavity repair. In addition, there is an abundance of evidence in the scientific literature indicating that fluoride causes a delay in the normal shedding of the “baby” teeth, and their replacement by permanent teeth. This delay has been shown to increase the number of children with mal-positioned teeth. Again, braces are far more expensive than fillings.

In 1993 the National Academy of Sciences warned,
“dental fluorosis… might be more than a cosmetic defect if enough fluorotic enamel is fractured and lost to cause pain, adversely affect food choices, compromise chewing efficiency, and require complex dental treatment.”

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.

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.

Four major studies involving 480,000 children (US, 39,000; Japan, 22,000; India, 400,000; Tucson, 29,000) comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas showed no significant difference in decay rates. Proven is that a higher intake of fluoride will actually cause MORE cavities, especially for children with low dietary calcium intake.

Yes. In 1990 fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicology Program. (Maurer, et. al., “Fluoride an equivocal carcinogen. J. National Cancer Institute 82, 1118-26, 1990) In 1992 further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males. (Cohn, Perry D. Ph.D. “An Epidemiological Report on Drinking Water” Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma in Young Males, New Jersey Department of Health, Environmental Health Service, Trenton NJ November 8, 1992) In 1997 there were more than 80 references available, linking fluoride to cancer.

Yes. According to Dr. J. William Hirzy (vice-president of the NFFE LOCAL 2050, the union representing all scientists at the EPA, Washington, D.C.) there have been 5 epidemiological studies done since 1990, in three different countries, all showing a higher increase in hip fractures in fluoridated communities.

Some studies have indicated an 87% higher risk of hip fractures to the elderly in areas where water fluoridation was below 1.5 ppm.

Yes, most definitely. On July 9, 1998 the Manchester Guardian reported news of fluoride poisoned water in Central India, from untested wells drilled in the 1980s, causing severe arthritic damage to tens of millions of people — a national disaster. Fluoride is the most bone seeking element known to mankind. The US Public Health Service has stated that fluoride makes the bones more brittle and dental enamel more porous.

Yes. Fluorides lower the intelligence capacity of humans, with children, again, especially susceptible to early fluoride toxicity. IQ levels were significantly lower than children not exposed to fluorides in all age groups listed. (According to Dr. Hirzy, 5 to 19 points lower!) (Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., Gao, R.O., “Effects of Fluoride Exposure on the Intelligence of Children”, Fluoride;28:182-189, 1995)

Further studies proving the neurotoxicity of fluoride in rats have also been conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullinex and her co-workers. (Note: this also explains a recent University of South Florida study relating fluoride intake during pregnancy to the yearly 1% increase in learning disabilities found in children…)

Studies proving that fluorides transfer through the placenta are well known. (Meanwhile, Dr.Weil, Internet’s Health Guru, advocates fluoride supplements for pregnant women in his book “8 Weeks To Optimum Health”…)

There are also several studies linking aluminum with fluoride, showing that the bioavailability of aluminum is increased in the presence of fluorides, causing aluminum in the brain to double in treated animals. According to an October 28, 1992 Wall Street Journal Article about a study conducted by Varnier JA, et al.:
“Rats fed the highest doses developed irregular mincing steps characteristic of senile animals…. Post mortem examination of the rat brains disclosed ‘substantial cell loss in structures associated with dementia — the neo-cortex and hippocampus’.”

Note: Alzheimer’s Disease, first diagnosed by Dr. Alois Alzheimer in 1907, is now the #4 killer for every person over 60 in the US. Every 2nd person over 70 will develop Alzheimer’s.) Environmental fluoride is implicated in this.

The US Public Health Service estimates that 1 in 5 children have dental fluorosis. (By the way, all native reservations in the US have mandatory fluoridation, resulting in very high incidents of dental fluorosis in those areas.) Realistic figures are as high as 80% in some areas in the US and as high as 69% in Canada but these figures are not known for the UK. Studies have been conducted directly linking bone tissue damage to children with dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the first visible sign that destructive effects of fluoride are also occurring in bone, connective tissue, immune and enzyme functions.

In 1939 a dentist named H. Trendley Dean, DDS, examined water from 345 communities in Texas. Dr. Dean worked for the U.S Public Health Service (PHS). He determined that high concentrations of fluoride in the water corresponded to a high incidence in mottled teeth. To many dentists this provided an answer to the problem of mottled teeth they saw in some of their patients. Dr. Dean also unexpectedly found a lower incidence of dental cavities in some communities having about 1 ppm fluoride in the water supply. Among the native residents of these areas about ten percent developed the very mildest forms of mottled enamel, sometimes described as “beautiful white teeth”.

However, Dean used a technique known as “selective use of data”, using data from 21 cities while completely disregarding data from 272 other locations which show an almost complete lack of correlation when plotted. (J. Colquhoun; International Symposium on Fluoridation, Porte Alegre, Brazil, September 1988) Meanwhile, a number of court cases were being launched due to fluoride contamination, mainly by the aluminum industry. In addition the Manhattan Project, the secret atomic bomb project, was in a big race to build the world’s first A-bomb. A pollution incident of great magnitude occurred at a factory in New Jersey (DuPont) producing millions of tons of fluoride for the project.

A major “negative PR” problem was emerging, threatening the Manhattan Project and the secrecy around it. In 1945, supposedly as a result of Dr. Dean’s discovery, the PHS planned to conduct a 10-year study of fluoridation in two cities. Grand Rapids, Michigan was chosen as the city for artificial fluoridation and Muskegon, Michigan was the non-fluoridated city for comparison and cavity rates were to be compared. In 1950, after only five years into the project, due again to pressure exerted from the atomic bomb program, public health officials started to campaign for fluoridation.

The campaign was based on the fact that fluoridated Grand Rapids had shown some decrease in cavity rate. Meanwhile there was also a decrease in cavity rate shown in non-fluoridated Muskegon. However, Muskegon was dropped from the study for unknown reasons. After the project was completed, only the Grand Rapids result was released and a major PR campaign promoting fluoride use started.

Many studies have been conducted examining the adverse effects of fluoride on the eco-system. In 1995, the Canadian EPA identified the now closed Brunswick Mining and Smelting Fertilizer Plant in Belledune, New Brunswick as having the largest discharge of fluoride to the aquatic environment in Canada. Toxicity to marine bacteria and impaired reproduction effects were demonstrated… Agriculture Canada (1976) found that 25 out of 36 cattle located on several Cornwall Island farms in the Saint Regis Quebec region displayed real or potential symptoms of chronic fluorosis.

A subsequent study of livestock in this region reported stiffness and inflamed leg joints, dental fluorosis, osteosclerosis, osteonecrosis and bone deformations. Many serious toxic and detrimental effects to plants and animal species have been documented, salmon populations in particluar being in the high risk category.

If you live in an area with fluoridated water, drink distilled water. You can have it delivered or buy it at Supermarkets. You can also buy distilling or reverse osmosis systems for home use which is the only way for taking fluoride out of the water. Also, eliminate any Teflon of Tefal coated cooking-ware, for scratches in the surface will release PTFT, another toxic fluoride compound.

Avoid fruit juices canned or bottled in fluoridated areas. All non-organic grape products are especially high in fluoride content due to the number of fertilizer and pesticide applications. Wine can contain up to 3 ppm fluoride. Avoid using any toothpaste or mouth-rinse containing fluoride. There are many alternatives on the market, for information on alternatives please contact me.

Click here for prices & to book your appointment