Skip to content
Fluoride side effects on brain
Is Fluoride Good For You
Is Fluoride In Tap Water Bad For You
In the realm of public health debates, few topics stir as much controversy and contention as fluoride. Advocates tout its benefits for dental health, while critics raise alarms about its potential risks to overall well-being. As a proponent for informed decision-making and safeguarding public health, it's crucial to delve into the intricacies of fluoride—its origins, its widespread presence in water fluoridation practices, its links to neurotoxicity, and the myriad sources through which humans are exposed. Moreover, we must confront the troubling parallels between fluoride and the lead crisis, shedding light on why the Fluoride Action Network considers fluoride as the new lead in water.
Unlike other water treatment processes, fluoridation does not alter the water itself; rather, it targets the individual consuming it. The Food & Drug Administration acknowledges fluoride as a drug, not a nutrient, when utilized to prevent disease. Consequently, fluoridating water constitutes a form of medication. This stance is reflected in the rejection of this practice by most western European nations, as they believe that the public water supply is not an appropriate medium for administering drugs, especially considering that fluoride is readily accessible for individual use in the form of toothpaste.
What is Fluoride and Where Does It Come From?
Fluoride, an abundant mineral in the Earth's crust, exists naturally in various forms, including calcium fluoride. However, the fluoride added to water supplies typically comes from synthetic compounds such as sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid. These substances are often byproducts of industrial processes, including phosphate fertilizer production and aluminum manufacturing, raising concerns about potential contaminants and impurities in the fluoride used for water fluoridation.
Why is fluoride in water
Water Fluoridation Practices and History: Water fluoridation, introduced in the United States in the 1940s, marked a significant milestone in public health policy, aiming to reduce dental cavities and promote oral hygiene on a population-wide scale. The practice involves adding fluoride compounds to municipal water supplies at a concentration deemed to be beneficial for dental health. Despite its widespread adoption and endorsement by various health organizations, water fluoridation remains a contentious issue, with critics questioning its necessity, efficacy, and safety. Moreover, the history of water fluoridation is intertwined with political and economic interests, raising questions about the influence of industry stakeholders in shaping public health policies.
Is fluoride a neurotoxin
Fluoride Links to Neurotoxicity: One of the most alarming aspects of fluoride exposure is its potential neurotoxic effects, particularly on developing brains. Numerous studies have linked fluoride exposure to cognitive impairment, decreased IQ levels, and neurobehavioral disorders such as ADHD and autism spectrum disorder. The Fluoride Action Network has compiled a robust body of evidence, challenging the safety of fluoride and advocating for more stringent regulations to protect vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women. Despite attempts by proponents to dismiss these findings or attribute them to methodological flaws, the weight of evidence continues to mount, underscoring the urgent need for further research and precautionary measures.
Sources of Fluoride for Humans
Fluoride exposure extends beyond water fluoridation, with individuals encountering the mineral through various sources in their daily lives. Dental products, such as toothpaste and mouthwash, often contain fluoride as an active ingredient, contributing to systemic exposure through ingestion and topical application. Processed foods and beverages may also contain fluoride, either naturally or as a result of food processing techniques. Additionally, pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables, as well as fluoride-based pesticides themselves, pose a risk of exposure to consumers. Tea drinks, particularly those made from tea leaves grown in regions with naturally high fluoride levels in the soil, can contain elevated levels of fluoride.
Fluorinated pharmaceuticals, used in various medical treatments, contribute to fluoride exposure, albeit in controlled doses. Mechanically deboned meat, derived from animal bones containing fluoride, may contain higher fluoride levels compared to other meat products. Teflon pans, used in cooking and food preparation, can release fluoride compounds when heated, potentially contaminating food. Lastly, workplace exposure to fluoride occurs in heavy industries such as aluminum smelting, where fluoride emissions can pose occupational health risks to workers.
Fluoride: The New Lead in Water?
Drawing parallels to the lead crisis, fluoride emerges as a concerning contaminant in water, with implications for public health that cannot be ignored. Research suggests a comparable loss of IQ associated with fluoride exposure as with lead, with IQ deficits observed even at doses commonly found in fluoridated water. Similarities in industry denial, personal attacks on scientists, and tactics aimed at shifting blame onto the affected population highlight the need for heightened vigilance and accountability in addressing the fluoride dilemma. The Fluoride Action Network has been vocal in its assertion that fluoride is the new lead in water, citing evidence of similar adverse effects on cognitive development, industry tactics aimed at downplaying risks, and the urgent need for regulatory action to protect public health.
The Countries Still Fluoridating Their Water:
Despite growing concerns about the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation, only a few countries continue to practice this controversial method of public health intervention. The United States remains one of the largest proponents of water fluoridation, with approximately 75% of its population receiving fluoridated water. Outside of the United States, other countries such as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and select areas in the United Kingdom also implement varying degrees of water fluoridation. However, in contrast, most Western European nations and most Asian countries have encountered opposition and scrutiny regarding water fluoridation. Consequently, this has resulted in the cessation or suspension of water fluoridation programs within these regions.
American dental association lobby
The American Dental Association (ADA) vigorously advocates for the ongoing fluoridation of water as a fundamental public health measure aimed at promoting dental health and preventing tooth decay. With extensive research spanning decades validating its effectiveness in cavity reduction, the ADA asserts the safety and cost-efficiency of water fluoridation, particularly highlighting its benefits for individuals across all age groups, especially those in underserved communities with limited access to dental care. The ADA's lobbying endeavors focus on advancing policies that endorse water fluoridation at both federal and state levels, collaborating closely with public health agencies and policymakers to ensure its widespread adoption. Despite ongoing debates and criticisms from detractors, the ADA remains unwavering in its support for water fluoridation as a cornerstone of preventive dentistry and community health initiatives. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and multiple expert groups, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics, also endorse water fluoridation as a safe approach to reducing tooth decay. Advocates often attribute the decline in tooth decay since the 1950s to the widespread introduction of fluoridated water, as acknowledged by the CDC in 1999. However, it's important to note that tooth decay rates have decreased significantly across all western countries, most of which no longer add fluoride to their water, a fact substantiated by data from the World Health Organization (WHO).
In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control noted that "dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century." However, what the CDC overlooked is that tooth decay rates have also seen significant declines in all western countries, regardless of whether they have ever fluoridated their water. Even in countries where water fluoridation is not practiced, tooth decay rates have decreased at a similar pace to those in the United States and other countries where fluoridation is common. This well-documented fact, widely acknowledged in dental literature, is supported by examining data from the World Health Organization (WHO) on tooth decay trends in various countries. A comparison of tooth decay trends in western countries with and without water (or salt) fluoridation can be easily demonstrated through figures and tables, illustrating the widespread decline in tooth decay rates across diverse nations.
TSCA Lawsuit Against Fluoride in Water
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) lawsuit filed against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2016 by the Fluoride Action Network and other organizations marked a significant legal challenge to water fluoridation in the United States. The lawsuit alleged that the EPA had failed to protect public health by allowing the addition of fluoride to drinking water without adequate assessment of its risks and benefits. While the lawsuit ultimately resulted in a dismissal by the court, it brought attention to the need for comprehensive evaluation of fluoride's health effects and regulatory oversight of water fluoridation practices. In response, the groups sued EPA in Federal Court in 2017. A 7-day trial was held in June 2020, with no ruling by the Court. The next phase of the trial is expected to be in early 2024. In California, the fate of fluoride in the drinking water of over 200 million Americans hangs in the balance as a federal judge, Edward M. Chen, prepares to weigh evidence on its potential risks to children's developing brains. This pivotal decision stems from research indicating that fluoride exposure may lead to lower IQ levels in children. Should Judge Chen determine that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be compelled to impose restrictions on its use in drinking water. Anticipation builds as stakeholders await the outcome of this landmark case, with a decision expected to be reached sometime in 2024.
As we navigate the complex terrain of fluoride and its implications for public health, it is imperative to approach the issue with critical scrutiny and evidence-based decision-making. The evidence presented here underscores the multifaceted nature of fluoride exposure, from its origins and widespread presence in water fluoridation practices to its potential neurotoxic effects and parallels with the lead crisis. By empowering individuals with knowledge and fostering informed dialogue, we can work towards policies and practices that prioritize public health and safety, ensuring that future generations are not unduly burdened by the risks of fluoride exposure.
HUMAN BIOLOGIST GARY BRECKA ON FLUORIDE
HUMAN BIOLOGIST GARY BRECKA In Depth
Talk ON FLUORIDE
Why did we include videos from Gary Brecka in this post? With over two decades of experience as a Human Biologist, Gary is driven by the quest for peak human functionality through practical yet gentle methods that respect the body's natural systems. His career commenced in the insurance sector, where he specialized in mortality modeling, utilizing medical and demographic data to predict lifespans down to the month. Transitioning from this role, Gary delved deeper into blood chemistry and longevity biomarkers, sparking his relentless pursuit of enhancing and prolonging life by optimizing these markers. Thus began his global exploration for the most effective methods to optimize human life and combat aging. Holding BS degrees in Biology and Human Biology, Gary's diverse background includes stints as a competitive triathlete and consultant, working with a range of clients from CEOs to elite athletes in the UFC, NFL, boxing, and entertainment realms. Today, he is dedicated to delivering science-based, research-backed tools to help individuals live their fullest lives.