October 2017


  UKFFFA plans the first UK National Conference

If you want to be active in the UK’s fight for Freedom From Fluoridation, to contribute to the debate on how we should be organised and help set out the tasks for the year ahead, as well as bringing yourselves up-to-date with the latest information, then put aside Saturday, 13th January 2018 and make your way to London for a conference being organised by UKFFFA and Safe Water Information Service (SWIS).

Following receipt of expressions of interest, we will publish these details more widely by sending them to at least 300 supporters.

Please say you will come! Just contact Joy at wwmaf@live.co.uk  or Ivor at info@safewaterinformation.org

The location will be the Diorama Arts Centre, Drummond Street, which is five minutes’ walk from Euston Station.  We are planning to start at 10am and finish formal activities by 4pm.  There will be presentations, interactive discussions and plenty of informal meetings. We’re asking for a £10 donation per delegate to defray room hire.  SWIS will fund any shortfall.

UKFFFA moves forward

The Association has now set up a Metro bank account with Joy Warren and Ivor Hueting as co-coordinators and as Treasurer and Chair respectively.

The UK Freedom from Fluoride Alliance (UKFFFA) is a not-for-profit organisation.  It was developed following discussions in London in 2016 and launched on 6 April, 2017 in Bedford when Paul Connett was visiting the UK.  Its aims are to provide information on water fluoridation, and to connect with and actively support individuals, established groups and fledgling groups opposing fluoridation in the UK.  A primary aim is to prevent water fluoridation even getting as far as Local Authorities’ Committee stage.

Founder member organisations are West Midlands against Fluoridation (WMAF), Safe Water Information Service (SWIS)*, and Fluoride Free Beds.  The two former organisations provide logistical and financial support. UKFFFA is independent of any other national group.

Reports and Resources

  1. Proof that fluoridation wastes money

The report, A Complete Waste of Money: Water Fluoridation Costs for England 2013-2021 presents evidence for an argument against financial waste which cash-strapped local authorities are now legally obliged to listen to.

Leaving aside the question of effectiveness, what is the real cost of water fluoridation as a means of preventing dental decay among its claimed target group which is young disadvantaged children?  Joy Warren and Geoff Pain’s technical paper demonstrates that, by any standards observed by accountants, the programme is a complete waste of money and that better oral health could be achieved by redirecting the money spent on more effective and targeted means of prevention. The paper is on Research Gate and is free to view.


  1.  Government sponsored research showing the link between fluoride exposure and in-utero damage to the brain

One of a number of  media reports quoting the Mexico study is CNN,including a section on ‘fluoride as a neurotoxin’ but giving space to the reassurers

Sep 21

(From CNN) Increased levels of prenatal fluoride exposure may be associated with lower cognitive function in children, a new study says.

The study, published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, evaluated nearly 300 sets of mothers and children in Mexico and tested the children twice for cognitive development over the course of 12 years. Fluoride is not added to public water supplies in Mexico, but people are exposed through naturally occurring fluoride in water and fluoridated salt and supplements. …


2.1 Newsweek article

This is the start of Newseek article which although it adds comments from detractors, is generally balanced

Sep 19

Adding fluoride to public drinking water for dental purposes has been controversial since the practice first began in 1945, and the latest findings are sure to stir that pot yet again. A new study suggests that prenatal exposure to this chemical may affect cognitive abilities and that children born to mothers exposed to high amounts of fluoride could have lower IQs.

The study, published Tuesday in Environmental Health Perspectives, found an association between lower intelligence and prenatal fluoride exposure in 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico. The team measured fluoride levels from mothers via urine samples and followed up on their children until they were between 6 and 12 years old. Even when other possible factors were taken into account, such as exposure to other chemicals, results continually showed that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was linked to lower scores on tests of cognitive function in children at age 4 and then again between 6 and 12….


2.2 Readers Digest article

And the Readers Digest weighs in with this heading, followed by a shorter piece that does not defend fluoride at all

If You Drink This Type of Water During Pregnancy, Your Child’s IQ Could Suffer

Most Americans are regularly exposed to this chemical on a daily basis.


2.3 ADA release and comment

This is the crux of the press release issued by the ADA. (my emphasis). Can someone explain, in words that these people can understand, that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE what  the source of the fluoride was, the facts established are that exposure  is harmful  to the unborn child and the greater the exposure, the greater the  harm.

…The findings, however, are not applicable to the U.S., according to the ADA’s news release, which also noted that the Association “continues to endorse fluoridation of public water as the most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.”

In responding to the study’s conclusions, the ADA noted that the intake of fluoride in Mexico “is significantly different from the U.S.,” because fluoride is added to salt and because fluoride naturally exists in varying degrees in community water. In the U.S., fluoride is not added to salt and is only added to water “in cases where the natural occurrence of fluoride is lower than the recommended level to prevent tooth decay,” the ADA said.

Furthermore, it is unknown how the subjects of the study ingested fluoride — whether through salt, water, or both — so “no conclusions can be drawn regarding the effects of community water fluoridation in the U.S.”…


2.4 From FAN comments-

FAN has redrawn this graph in simplified form to better illustrate the relationship found between mothers’ urine fluoride and children’s IQ.

This simplified version of the graph highlights the range of urine fluoride levels common in women in the USA with the blue text and bracket. When comparing mothers at the low end to those at the high end of this range, the subsequent loss of IQ in their children was 6 points. The light red shaded zone around the relationship line is the 95% Confidence Interval and demonstrates that the relationship is statistically significant across the entire range of fluoride exposures

Important Points:

  1. The loss of IQ is very large.  The child of a mother who was drinking 1 ppm F water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero F in it.
  2. The study measured urine F, which is usually a better indicator of total F intake than is the concentration of F in drinking water.  When drinking water is the dominant source of F,, urine F and water F are usually about the same.  So, the average urine F level in this study of 0.9 mg/L implies that woman was ingesting the same amount of F as a woman drinking water with 0.9 mg/L F.
  3. The range of F exposures in this study is likely to be very close to the range in a fluoridated area of the United States.  The doses in this study are directly applicable to areas with artificial fluoridation.  There is no need to extrapolate downward from effects at higher doses.  The claims by fluoridation defenders that only studies using much higher doses than occur in areas with artificial fluoridation have shown a loss of IQ are squarely refuted by this study.  Those false claims range from 11 times to 30 times higher, but are based on the logical fallacy that it is the highest dose amongst several studies that is relevant, when it is the LOWEST dose amongst studies that is most relevant.
  4. This study was very carefully done, by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures.  This was funded by the NIH and was a multi-million dollar study.  This was the group’s first study of fluoride, their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury, and other environmental neurotoxicants.
  5. This study controlled for a wide range of potential factors that might have skewed the results and produced a false effect.  It was able to largely rule out confounding by these other factors.  The factors ruled out included Pb, Hg, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy.
  6. This study offers confirmation of previous less sophisticated studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere.  Some of those studies had higher F exposures than are commonly found in the USA, but many did not.  The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation (as opposed to artificial salt fluoridation which was likely a main source of F in this new study) was by Broadbent in New Zealand.  That found no association between water F and IQ and was trumpted by fluoridation defenders.  But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL F intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with unfluoridated water, since most of the unfluoridated water children were given F supplements.

The study’s authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists.  But the implications of this study are enormous.  A single study will never prove that F lowers IQ at doses found in fluoridated areas, but this is more than a red flag.  It is a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation

2.5 VIDEO :Paul Conett’s comment ( 3 min.)


2.6   ‘Four Questions’ from Health News Review’

Sep 22

Doubts expressed  by the Health News Review, that asks

Multiple news outlets are covering a new study conducted in Mexico on fluoride exposure during pregnancy and its association with lower childhood IQ.

. Four questions :

..Does the headline overstate the evidence?

…Does the story discuss the limitations of the research?

…Does the story explain the size of the effect?

…Does the story explain the potential benefits of water fluoridation

The Health News Review justifiably points out  that association does not mean causation, but its statement  ‘fluoride could cause these problems, then again , it could not’ , that it could be ‘some unknown factor’ is itself unhelpful, particularly as most confounding factors are considered.

On the other hand, the review then goes on to highlight the lack of evidence for fluoridation’s benefits. The difference being, of course,  that among reports ‘proving’ fluoridation’s efficacy  there are a large number of confounding variables, a direct motive for obscuring the facts, a wide variation of results from different reports, and much recognisably poor quality research, none of which applies to the current study,

One further reason for questioning either the statistical knowledge or impartiality of the Review statement is the apparent lack of understanding in the question; ‘Is 2.5 points difference noticeable?’  It is – see Connett’s diagram and explanation above.


2.7 Jack Crowther: Study deals blow to fluoridation Commentary published in Rutland Herald

Oct 14

Here is a much better review, although it does repeat much of the FAN argument. Jack Crowther then adds some observations from the recent conference ( see item 4)

We took heart with the reminder that the world is not embracing fluoridation... Similarly, many respected organizations have either withdrawn endorsements or are neutral on fluoridation. This counters the impression fostered by the American Dental Association and public health agencies that any entity worth its salt endorses fluoridation. Outright opponents of fluoridation include the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the Environmental Working Group, Food and Water Watch, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the Organic Consumers Association.

Organizations that once endorsed fluoridation but no longer do include the American Cancer Society, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumers Union (Consumer Reports), the National Kidney Foundation, the National Down Syndrome Congress and the New York Academy of Medicine...


2.8 And from Rick North, former executive vice president of the Oregon American Cancer Society,who ends with this point

…Fluoridation proponents believe the burden of proof is to show conclusively that a substance is harmful before it’s disallowed.

We’ve seen this misguided thinking before. In 1954, responding to numerous studies showing correlations between smoking and lung cancer, the tobacco industry asserted “there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.” As late as 1994, industry executives again declared at a Congressional hearing that correlation wasn’t enough and smoking hadn’t been proven to be a cause of cancer.

….It took decades of science finding harm before the government belatedly banned or restricted them. The amount of impairment, suffering, disease and death occurring in that lag time is incalculable – and unnecessary.

It’s time to be on the right side of history.   It’s time to end water fluoridation.


2.9 On-line Comment It is worth including one comment, from Richard Sauerheber

This is a good article. Thank you. The neurologic effects of ingested fluoride were earlier investigated by Phyllis Mullenix in mammals and by Varner and coworkers as well. A student asked me, why then are not people being seriously poisoned by drinking fluoridated water? Very few if any fluoridation promoters understand that fluoride at any level in the blood exerts toxic effects to varying degree in man and animals. At 3-4 ppm, as happened with citizens in Hooper Bay, AK during an accidental overfeed, this level is lethal (one victim perished from fluoride-induced heart block). At 1 ppm in the blood, as occurred in kidney dialysis wards where blood levels matched the level in the feed water, patient morbidity escalated (perishing from heart failure by a different mechanism over months of time)....


Fluoride Warnings Issued by International Group of Dentists

October is Dental Hygiene Month, but not all dentists will be touting the alleged benefits of fluoride.  In fact, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT, www.iaomt.org) is using this month to raise awareness of the health risks associated with fluoride and to publicly release their new fluoride position paper and fluoride webpages.  The IAOMT has been a trusted ally of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) for many years, and the two organizations recently worked together as part of a coalition to petition the EPA to end fluoridation.

The IAOMT is an organization of over 800 dentists, physicians, and research professionals in more than 14 countries, and the non-profit organization has been dedicated to its mission of protecting public health since it was founded in 1984.  Since that time, the group has continually collected, examined, and reviewed studies and research articles about fluoride and other dental materials and practices

“IAOMT and its members have been independently studying the toxicity of fluoride for decades,” Matthew Young, DDS, President of the IAOMT, explains.  “For dentistry, as an ethical profession, it is imperative to uphold the concepts of ‘do no harm.’  Fluoride has traditionally been seen as a panacea for dental disease without the knowledge of its inherent harm to the human body.  We need to seek less toxic alternatives and work to improve human health with the safest approach.”

This week, the IAOMT is officially releasing a variety of new fluoride awareness resources available for free on their website.  The materials were developed based on the group’s new Position Paper against Fluoride Use in Water, Dental Materials, and Other Products.  Hundreds of scientific studies and research articles were analyzed to create this detailed document, which includes over 500 citations supporting the potential for fluoride to cause adverse health outcomes.

The IAOMT’s official position is that given the elevated number of fluoride sources and the increased rates of fluoride intake in the American population, which have risen substantially since water fluoridation began in the 1940’s, it has become a necessity to reduce and work toward eliminating avoidable sources of fluoride exposure, including water fluoridation, fluoride-containing dental materials, and other fluoridated products.

“Ingesting synthetic fluoride, such as that added to community water, is not only ineffective at reducing tooth decay, but it also exposes our population to a number of toxins,” David Kennedy, DDS, lead author of the IAOMT Fluoride Position Paper, cautions.  “American children are already being overdosed with fluoride, as is evidenced by the increase in tooth mottling (fluorosis), which now occurs to some degree in a majority of our youth.  The National Research Council determined that many individuals are exceptionally vulnerable to the toxic effects of fluoride.  When will people realize that scientific research offers grave warnings about fluoride? Don’t we all deserve safe water?”

Visit the IAOMT’s new fluoride pages at https://iaomt.org/for-patients/fluoride-facts/, and be sure to follow the IAOMT on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn!

Oct 4

International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) press release can also be seen here . Heading: Fluoride Warnings Issued by International Group of Dentists



6th Citizens Conference on Fluoride, held September 16-18


From FAN: The conference was a great success with many informative presentations and constant interaction amongst campaigners from around the world, followed by our strongest Congressional lobby-day to date.

Over the coming weeks, Fluoride Action Network (FAN) will publish a brief summary of the conference presentations in a bulletin, and will be releasing a series of high-quality videos of most presentations.  Please stay tuned!

Conference reports1:New Video:

In the meantime, we invite you watch our first video from the conference.  FAN Senior Advisor and co-author of “The Case Against Fluoride,” Paul Connett, PhD took a few minutes during his presentation to expose pro-fluoridation quackery and propaganda.  Click the image below:

Please share the video and our webpage above.  You can do so easily by sharing FAN’s Facebook or Twitter posts with the topic.  Please also share the video anytime you see fluoride promotors commenting on social media or on news articles.

5 Confirming the evidence that ceasing fluoridation did not increase tooth decay in Calgary


An authoritative confirmation that the widely quoted report used to support reintroduction in Calgary, is based on a lie.

This should not be news to SWIS readers: see Articles in both the Reports and Resources and the News sections of the February 2016 edition:


Oct. 11,

A paper published in this journal, “Measuring the short-term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children using tooth surface indices,” by McLaren et al had shortcomings in study design and interpretation of results, and did not include important pertinent data. Its pre–post cross-sectional design relied on comparison of decay rates in two cities: Calgary, which ceased fluoridation, and Edmonton, which maintained fluoridation. Dental health surveys conducted in both cities about 6.5 years prior to fluoridation cessation in Calgary provided the baseline. They were compared to decay rates determined about 2.5 years after cessation in a second set of surveys in both cities.

A key shortcoming was the failure to use data from a Calgary dental health survey conducted about 1.5 years prior to cessation. When this third data set is considered, the rate of increase of decay in Calgary is found to be the same before and after cessation of fluoridation, thus contradicting the main conclusion of the paper that cessation was associated with an adverse effect on oral health.

Furthermore, the study design is vulnerable to confounding by caries risk factors other than fluoridation: The two cities differed substantially in baseline decay rates, other health indicators, and demographic characteristics associated with caries risk, and these risk factors were not shown to shift in parallel in Edmonton and Calgary through time. An additional weakness was low participation rates in the dental surveys and lack of analysis to check whether this may have resulted in selection biases. Owing to these weaknesses, the study has limited ability to assess whether fluoridation cessation caused an increase in decay.

The study's findings, when considered with the additional information from the third Calgary survey, more strongly support the conclusion that cessation of fluoridation had no effect on decay rate. Consideration of the limitations of this study can stimulate improvement in the quality of future fluoridation effectiveness studies.

5.2 This is the FAN release

A commentary in yesterday’s Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology reveals tooth decay rates did not increase faster after fluoridation stopped in Calgary as claimed in a previously published study (McLaren, et al 2016). Chris Neurath led the team that reports McLaren’s study is scientifically inaccurate, uses incomplete data, and relies on two populations that are not similar, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

McLaren used older survey data from 6.5 years before Calgary stopped fluoridation and excluded more relevant data from 1.5 years before cessation. Including the more current data revealed that tooth decay rose in Calgary at the same rate both before and after fluoridation was stopped. Factors other than fluoridation must account for the steady increase in decay. This is confirmed by a large increase in decay in the “control” city of Edmonton, which had long-standing continuous fluoridation. Fluoridation was unable to prevent that increase in decay.

“These findings negate McLaren’s conclusion that fluoridation cessation caused an increase in decay,” says Neurath.

Additional problems with the McLaren study were noted:

  • The study design is vulnerable to confounding by caries risk factors other than fluoridation.
  • Baseline decay rates for the two cities differed substantially.
  • Other risk factors for decay were not controlled for in either Calgary or Edmonton.
  • There was low participation in the dental surveys and inadequate analysis to check whether this may have skewed results.

“Our commentary shows that McLaren’s study design is too weak to meet minimum quality criteria set up by the prestigious Cochrane Collaborative in their recent review of fluoridation effectiveness,” says Neurath.

McLaren has heavily promoted her work throughout Canada, and especially in Calgary where there have been efforts to reverse the city council’s 11 to 3 vote that stopped fluoridation in 2011.

FAN Senior Advisor Paul Connett, PhD noted “McLaren received over a million dollars in grant funding and salary from federal and provincial public health organizations whose policy is to promote fluoridation.”

Commentary co-author James Beck, MD PhD, who lives in Calgary, said “As a scientist, the seriously flawed science in the McLaren study disturbs me. Citizens should be concerned that their tax dollars have funded this biased work.”

Paper available here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12329/abstract

Abstract Note that the full report is only available on subscription

 These charts have been added by FAN. They were part of a presentation  that is available from the SWIS  news update – see link above – together with SWIS editorial comments on the obvious failings of the McLaren reoort.

Keep fluoride out of our tap water

The report was  published in February 2016 and the following link was shown in a subsequent SWIS update http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12215/full

5.3 The report prompted an excellent article in the Calgary Herald , followed by a supporting letter from a medical doctor.

Oct 12

Edmonton has fluoride in its drinking water. Calgary does not. Take a wild guess which of the two cities’ children have more cavities?

If you said Calgary, you’d be wrong! Chew on that for a while. Despite continuing to have fluoride in their water, kids in Edmonton have more tooth decay than Calgary kids — in their baby teeth and their permanent teeth, says a University of Calgary study....


New Film: Drinking Fluoride- is it safe?A production by Moms against Fluoride, make a short but forcefully presented case

Fluoride is now known to be a developmental neurotoxin, a chemical that negatively affects a child’s developing brain. Drinking fluoridation is also known to be implicated or causing many adverse health effects. Moms Against Fluoridation (MAF) released a short film entitled Drinking Fluoride: Is It Safe?.

"This is about our drinking water and a chemical, a 'drug', added to the water that has never been proven safe and is now known to have many adverse health effects. This chemical can find its way into our beverages, soups, our lemonades, our sodas and baby formulas," states the MAF team.

Drinking Fluoride: Is It Safe? engages health professionals, doctors and researchers on the safety concerns and negative health effects from drinking artificial fluoridation chemicals.

Water fluoridation was endorsed as a public health policy in the 1950s in the absence of any testing for the long-term safety of human health. Always a controversial practice, most of the world has rejected public water fluoridation on scientific or ethical grounds.

Many cities across the United States continue to add artificial fluoridation chemicals to their water supply. The justification often given by proponents to city and state leaders is for a 25% reduction in cavities. What does 25% really mean? In fact this alleged and unproven "25%" is nothing more than a tiny reduction of less than one cavity per person that could be reduced over a lifetime. Maybe.

Really," states Moms Against Fluoridation, "who in their right mind would risk the IQ and brain health of a child, the health of a thyroid or inflammation in the body for some alleged tiny reduction of less than one cavity per person over a lifetime?"

MAF continues, "Drinking this chemical every day does not build great teeth, and to say it does, and that we all must drink it, is patently false. This is fear-mongering of the worst kind, and babies and children are being harmed. Even teeth are being harmed as the film shows."

Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, Senior Scientist for the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis and one of the leading experts on fluoridation, was one of the 12 National Research Council (NRC) committee members who contributed to the 2006 NRC review of fluoride toxicity. In the film she is featured challenging the notion that the science has been settled and in Dr. Thiessen’s words, “That’s a cop-out.”

This film points out the rather stunning fact that adding an unlabeled "drug" to the water supply with no informed medical consent, no control over the daily dose or regard for personal health and medical conditions, goes against all principles of modern medicine.

Angela Hind, MD, also featured in the film, states, “We used to think that fluoride only affects the teeth, but now we know it has far-reaching effects on the body. And, if you take these negative health effects and combine that with the fact that we know fluoride acts topically, it really makes no sense to drink our cavity prevention.”

The body of evidence has reached a tipping point, begging us to question the status quo chant of “Trust us; it’s safe.” This short film asks the audience to consider the evidence. The potential health risks, including disruption of thyroid function, inflammation and harmful effects to the brain, are too great to go left unquestioned.

Drinking Fluoride: Is It Safe? exposes risks that many of us never imagined decades ago and proves the importance of informing ourselves just as we did with lead, arsenic and asbestos..

Watch the 5- minute video here:



Oct 20   Article headed Should dentists continue to use fluoride/’

For full version of article click here

The article in ’Multi briefs’ ‘the leading source for targeted, industry-specific news briefs.’ gave an inadequate and  somewhat confused summary of the case.

...Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral. It is in our soils, water, and food in various amounts, depending on where you live, but our bodies don’t need it to survive.

In the 1930s, dental research showed that children who lived in areas with high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride in the water had less tooth decay.  ... More than a pea-sized portion of toothpaste is too much, ingestion of which can lead to fluorosis and other possible health risks.

...Moreover, many dentists agree diet is essential to healthy teeth, and the act of brushing and flossing is the mechanism that removes plaque from teeth. Simple baking soda alkalizes and aids in removing bacteria and plaque from teeth.

Recent dental research has led to the discovery of other substances that may be safer than fluoride and still harden tooth enamel and defend against decay. Current research is testing theobromine and its ability to prevent tooth decay.

Finally, in many other countries where fluoride is not used, data does not show an increase in cavities or dental decay.

This raises the question: With so much speculation in fluoride hazards and the difficulty in controlling the amount of fluoride each person ingests, combined with the research on promising new substances that help, why isn’t the dental industry investing more in finding a safer alternative?



Fluoride: Poison on Tap By Dr. Mercola 3000 word article worth printing out as a leaflet in its own right, to give to any sceptical friend.

full report here  

Story at-a-glance - 

Since 1945, it has been widely accepted in the U.S. that fluoride is “safe and effective” to prevent tooth decay, but many health experts and scientists disagree

Rates of dental fluorosis among children and adolescents has spiked in recent years and, if fluoridated water is used, formula-fed infants are at particular risk for fluorosis even before their teeth are fully formed

The Fluoride Action Network has brought a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency seeking to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride to American water supplies

Summary and headings:

Fluoride = Health: How Did We Get Here?

The Beginning of Water Fluoridation

Fluoride May Be in More Than Just Your Drinking Water

Common Misconceptions About Water Fluoridation

The Effects of Fluoride on Your Body

Fluorosis: Are Your Children Affected?

Caution: Fluoride Is Extremely Harmful for Infants

The Bottom Line About Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

It's Easy to Safeguard Your Oral Health Without Fluoride

Landmark Lawsuit Against EPA Seeks to End Fluoridation in US

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More



Global Sodium Fluorosilicate Industry Trends and Forecast Analysis till 2021

A reminder that fluoride is big business, starts with a chilling summary of the ‘uses’ of fluorosilicate

Oct 5

Sodium fluorosilicate is granular based powder form which is white in color. It works as an agent of fluoridation in coatings for porcelain and for clean drinking water. Sodium fluorosilicate is also used for the effective treatment for lice, insecticide and rodenticide. According to the new research report titled, “Global Sodium Fluorosilicate Industry 2017, Trends and Forecast,” that has been added in the repository of Market Research Hub, sodium fluorosilicate is used as additives in few countries for ore refining, water fluoridation, raw material for opal glass and for the production of some other fluoride chemicals such as cryolite, sodium fluoride, aluminum fluoride and magnesium silicofluoride.


Local news


Oct 10th. For some reason, the Central Bedfordshire page appeared amongst google alerts. It does, however, show,that some parts of Bedfordshire – not Bedford town – are currently still fluoridated. This list with an accompanying map comes after a patronising explanation of ..’ what is known as artificial water fluoridation,.’

Water fluoridation in Bedfordshire

The responsibility for water fluoridation scheme lies with local authorities and is reviewed on a case by case basis. When all of the water treatment plants are dosing with fluoride, about 20% of residents have fluoridated water.

This map of Bedfordshire (PDF   shows the parish, district council and Public Water Supply Zone (PWSZ) boundaries across the county correct as of May 2017.

Here is a summary of the water supply:

  • the area supplied by Manton Lane Reservoir (shaded blue/green) is not currently artificially fluoridated
  • the area supplied by Pulloxhill PWSZ (stripy green) is also not currently artificially fluoridated
  • the area supplied by Newspring, Dunton, Meppershall and Potton water treatment work PWSZ (light green) is currently artificially fluoridated
  • the areas not shaded in Central Bedfordshire are not artificially fluoridated

Local campaigner Cynthia Bagchi is trying to unravel the increasingly complex story,in thecourse of which ., she says, the County Council have been ‘telling lies’. More to follow

International News..

Click here for all the following items

then Scroll down for details .


 U .S

Albuquerque NM   Fluoride added again

Amawalk N.Y. Equipment problems halted water fluoridation

Buda, Texas Council candidates agree fluoridation was an “unnecessary” cost to the city,

Chapel Hill, NC.Thirteen people speak against adding fluoride to the water supply—

Letter from campaigner Linda Camino

Meadville PA Water Authority will seek official approval to add fluoridation equipment Letter from Chris Knapp linking dentists to opiod drug addiction

Ormond Beach, Florida City Commissioner asks suppliers for material safety data sheet

Port Angeles WA prepares for ballot

Continued move to revert back to a second-class city by anti-fluoride campaigner

Potsdam, New York public comment on whether to continue fluori dating

Rugby, ND A motion to repeal a 1958 ordinance mandating adding to fluoride

Sulphur, LA Not everyone is happy the City  re-introduced Fluoride

Westchester NY will no longer add fluoride to its drinking water


Calgary More from those who won’t take NO for an answer

How a misleading headline affects the truth

Tooth decay rates did not increase faster after fluoridation stopped in Calgary:                               Commentary

FAN release

Article by L Corbella in Calgary Herald

Letter in Calgary Herald Robert C. Dickson medical doctor supports Corbella Moncton NB Council voted keep fluoride out of the region’s water supply

Owen Sound, Ontario petition for ballot question to about removing fluoride


Bega, New South Wales Council to wash its hands of the water fluoridation debate Gunnedah, New South Wales considering whether or not to add fluoride

Poll and results

New Zealand

 Press release from FFNZ on the Environmental Health Perspectives study and rejecting  the claim  that it is ‘ poorly researched’ .