By Nick Rogers

CHARDON, OHIO – The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) touts municipal water fluoridation as one of the top ten medical advances of the 20^th century.  Fluoride is not mandated by law, but it is highly recommended by health agencies across the board, so how safe is this practice and could there be health risks?

“Fluoridation of community water is extremely safe and extremely effective in preventing tooth decay,” said Edward Hewlett of the American Dental Association (ADA). “Science is on the side of fluoride being safe and effective.”

Hewlett assures us that, “There is no controversy about this in the scientific community.” Despite this bold assertion, a clear debate rages on not only in local communities but also in the scientific one.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) – tasked with regulating fluoride levels in the state’s water – maintains a fluoride compliance spectrum of 0.8 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to 1.3mg/l, according to Frank Taylor, Chardon’s Water Superintendent. The city strives, he says, for “…an average level of 1mg/l. When asked about his thoughts on the growing scientific literature implicating fluoride as a neuro-toxic carcinogen – one that has commonly been used as a main ingredient in rat poison and insecticide for decades – Taylor replied, “I have no comment on your question.”

Despite pockets of growing public outcry, a majority of this country’s population seems intent on continuing to “trust the experts” when it comes to this issue and others pertaining to our collective health and well-being. An investigation into the origin of water fluoridation, however, paints a dark, corrupt picture worthy of critical public discussion.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid – the most commonly used “fluoridation” compound in municipal water supplies; commonly referred to simply as “fluoride” – is a waste byproduct of the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries, respectively, and by the 1930s, founder of Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) and United States Treasury Secretary, Andrew W. Mellon, found himself in hot water. After a damning US Department of Agriculture report entitled Chronic Fluorine Intoxication, and after numerous lawsuits were paid out to farmers whose livestock’s diseases and deaths were linked to ALCOA plants (ALCOA settlements continue on to this day), Mellon took control of the situation by utilizing his high-powered and industry-funded Mellon Institute. Institute scientist Gerald Cox – based on highly-questionable findings – devised a solution: he recommended that fluoride be added to municipal water supplies to protect the public against tooth decay. Just like that, an industrial waste product was transformed into a preventative health measure.

The job was not done, though. What Mellon – also in charge of the US Health Service at the time – and the rest of his industry needed was a public relations makeover. They found it in Edward Bernaise, a man who literally wrote the book on Propaganda and who garnered the nickname the “Father of Public Relations.”

Bernaise – using a media blitz promoting fluoridation of drinking water and toothpaste – convinced the ADA and the public at large that the practice of dumping – i.e. disposing of –  “small” amounts of the known carcinogen into water supplies was not only safe but integral for dental health. One of the cruelest ironies is that, in actuality, prolonged “overexposure” to fluoride has actually been proven to make teeth worse. The condition is called fluorosis.

Much like tobacco, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and Agent Orange – all of them deadly carcinogens that government agencies once told us were perfectly safe – the negative health effects of chronic fluoride exposure, even at “low” levels,  are now well-published and acknowledged, except by our health authorities. It is readily taken up by the thyroid, and it disrupts neurological function, especially in children. Over time, the toxin calcifies bones and accumulates in the brain, particularly the pineal gland, (sometimes referred to as the “gateway to the soul”). For those of us who grew up with fluoridated water, it is easy to assume that this is just how things are everywhere. However, fewer than 400,000 people worldwide have their water publicly fluoridated, or less than 5%.

In addition to the repetitive, hypnotic mantra of ADA, CDC, and EPA representatives proclaiming the safety and effectiveness of fluoride for preventing cavities, two studies are cited above the rest as a foundational basis for the practice’s efficacy. The open field study, which took place in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has some major problems, according to Dr. David Kennedy, DDS.

“It was an unblinded study,” Kennedy said. “They did no measure of safety, and they claimed that there was a tremendous benefit to the permanent teeth. Well, there weren’t any permanent teeth in the children who were born at the beginning of the study. And soon thereafter they fluoridated Muskegon, the control city. It’s a phony-bologna study used to demonstrate the benefits where there are none.”

The second study was published in The Journal of the American Dental Association. It focused on workers exposed to hydrofluoric acid on a daily basis. The final publication of the study concluded that workers exposed to the chemical had fewer cavities than those who weren’t. What co-author of the study Peter P. Dale D.M.D, a major player in the Manhattan Project, omitted from the final publication – later revealed through declassified documents obtained by investigative journalist Christopher Bryson – was that the subjects’ teeth were actually deteriorating while their gums bled profusely, and that the lack of cavities had to do with the fact that the workers were “…in large proportion edentulous [toothless] or nearly edentulous.”

And while much of the damage left in fluoride’s wake takes years to come to fruition – cancer, thyroid disorder, arthritis, dementia, among other chronic conditions – many have begun to link fluoride exposure – both in the womb and in early childhood – with conditions such as ADHD and plummeting IQ levels. While fluoride is surely not the only culprit in the epidemic of neurological decline in children – a strong argument can be made for the synergistic toxicity of prolonged exposure to electromagnetics, heavy metals in our food, water, and air along with an ever-growing list of childhood vaccines – it remains one of the key players in the saga.

An often-overlooked – and under-studied – element in chronic fluoride uptake is the skin. As our largest organ, the skin readily absorbs toxins of all kinds through the pores. Even if you don’t drink fluoridated tap water, chances are you bathe in it. Boiling fluoridated water does not get rid of the toxin, so steaming vegetables or making rice/pasta is a sure route to fluoride intake as well. Distilled water is one solution, but whole-house filtration systems are very expensive, and distilling drinking water gets rid of all of the healthy minerals found in water that has not been distilled. Remineralization, however, can be achieved.

The practice of water fluoridation appears to be an all-risk, no-reward scenario; a one-size-fits-all medicinal application. Unlike all the other chemicals added to treat the water, fluoride is the only one added to treat humans. Heart disease is a major problem in this country, but we don’t dump heart medication into the water supply. The same goes for cancer or any other disease in the laundry list of chronic ailments that effects our population today. Like the sea of electromagnetics from cell towers and WiFi everywhere we go, fluoride is a ubiquitous toxin inundating us whether we have consented to it or not.

There is hope. Springfield, Ohio and other cities have banned fluoridation in their water supplies after much public outrage and pressure placed upon their city councils. Chardon, however, continues to fluoridate its water supply at a level above what even the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) recommends. While health authorities present the risk-free benefits of fluoridating city water as consensus fact, there are many others – from “ordinary Citizens” to dentists and scientists – who vehemently refute this claim. Whatever your stance on the practice is, what remains abundantly clear is that for those of us living in communities with fluoridated water supplies, the addition of this chemical is not being offered as a choice. As long as the ADA, CDC, and EPA declare fluoride safe, nothing will change on a local level without public outcry. The question remains: do you consent?