Wellington Could Reconsider Water Fluoridation Policy

An old debate has been rekindled in Wellington as council members prepare to discuss the necessity of fluoride in the village’s drinking water.

On Tuesday, Jan. 28, council members will discuss a resolution to eliminate fluoridation of Wellington’s public drinking water supply. The village has added fluoride to its drinking water since 1999, when council members at the time voted to install equipment and fluoridate the water.

Council members directed staff last week to put the issue on the agenda following comments from the public about the necessity of fluoride in the drinking water. “I think the issue merits public discussion,” Vice Mayor Howard Coates said.

The issue of fluoridation in public drinking water has long divided communities across the country since the idea was introduced in the 1940s. Fluoridation has been supported by many major health organizations in the United States, including the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.

Proponents argue that adding fluoride to the water is beneficial for teeth and helps reach populations that do not regularly receive dental care.

Other organizations, such as the Sierra Club and other citizen groups, have opposed fluoride, claiming it could have unintended consequences, introduces unnecessary additives into the water and is unnecessary in affluent communities where the population typically can afford dental services.

According to a Wellington staff report, the village’s utility department has not had any incidents adding fluoride to the water and has not received any complaints documenting negative impacts. Wellington spends about $34,000 a year for fluoridation.

During public comment at the Jan. 14 meeting, resident Charlene Arcadipane asserted that Wellington had not received confirmation from its fluoride provider that the substance is safe for drinking water. “Two council members have sent out letters to the supplier of hydrofluoric acid, the fluoridation chemical that we are forced to drink and bathe in,” said Arcadipane, who led the opposition to fluoridation when the issue was last discussed 15 years ago.

The letters requested confirmation that the manufacturer claims the product is safe for consumption and that it helps fight tooth decay. “More than a year has gone by without a response,” Arcadipane said. “They have chosen to ignore their due diligence.”

Further, Arcadipane said Village Engineer Bill Riebe has submitted documents to the village that say the arsenic content has exceeded what the water additive can contribute. She added that although she had been told workshops were planned to discuss the matter, none had been held.

Coates said that he was one of the council members who requested the information.

“I will tell you… much of this is beyond my comprehension level,” he said. “I have relied on [Riebe] to tell me if there has been compliance. I don’t have the independent engineering background to make those determinations.”

He said that Riebe has said that the chemical is difficult to work with. “In my conversations with the village engineer, the one thing that has been a constant is his assessment is that the fluoride is a very nasty chemical and one of the most difficult chemicals they deal with here in the village,” Coates said.

The issue of fluoridation has supporters and opponents with passionate views, he acknowledged. “The reason I have been a supporter of having a workshop is to give both sides an opportunity to air their issues before this council,” Coates said. “It’s the only way we can get the information presented in a structured, organized manner.”

But Coates said he was skeptical of the necessity of fluoride in Wellington’s water supply. “I have significant reservations if fluoridation is necessary in communities like Wellington,” he said.

He said he hadn’t made a firm decision whether or not he supports fluoridation.

“I haven’t made a decision yet, but I will say I have respect for the initial argument that this is a nasty chemical we’re ingesting into our bodies,” he said. “At the end of the day, if there’s not much of a benefit to a community like Wellington — and there are those who say the socioeconomic status of the community doesn’t make a difference, but I tend to disagree — then why are we putting it in?”

Councilman John Greene also wanted to have a workshop on the issue. “I tend to agree with you,” he said. “My understanding is that a workshop has been scheduled and cancelled.”

Village Manager Paul Schofield said it had been postponed because there was not an entity willing to debate against fluoridation.

“The concept was to have a public debate with both sides represented,” Schofield said. “A lot of people will come in and tell you fluoride is a wonderful thing. Hardly anyone wants to represent the other side.”

Schofield noted that Wellington’s water supply is heavily regulated and has remained in compliance with all regulations. “If we weren’t, we would have been cited long ago,” he said.

He said he is prepared to hold a discussion on the matter at the Jan. 28 meeting.

Greene said he supported having a discussion then. “I think the proper way to have this debate would be to bring all sides in,” he said. “I think there are some socioeconomic advantages for some communities to have fluoride, but in a community like Wellington with more affluence — where residents are more likely to have proper hygiene and visit the dentist — it might not be necessary.”


  1. I would imagine any one of those above favoring water fluoridation has performed the same evaluation of evidence which Israel just has. They must have researched and studied countless hours as that country has only to regurgitate those outdated and tired old recommendations given them by the CDC and ADA. Saves them from having to use their brain. Speaking of brains, I would guess they have also conducted more research than a recent Harvard University study which concluded fluoride reduces the IQ of children. Their ridicule is no match for intellect.



  2. A number of prominent Nobel Prize-winning scientists have opposed water fluoridation. Dr. Arvid Carlsson, won the Nobel Prize in medicine/Physiology in 2000 for his research on neurotransmitters in the brain. In a 2005 interview, Dr. Arvid Carlsson noted that “fluoridation
    is against all modern principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete. I don’t think anybody in Sweden, not a single dentist, would bring up this question.

    Key figures in the environmental health community have also gone on record as supporting an end to water fluoridation.

    In western Europe, over 97 percent of the population drinks non-fluoridated water (and yet, their tooth decay rates are generally lower than the tooth decay rates in the U.S.)

    No one has done more to protect the American consumer over the past 50 years than Ralph Nader. It should be of little surprise, therefore,
    that Nader opposes mandatory fluoridation.


  3. The newspaper report, and the comments, missed an important factor — as evidenced by direct requests to the manufacturers of the fluoridation chemical, the manufacturers do not agree with the grandiose promotional statements and will not give their own assurances of safety and effectiveness, a copy of the documents that they are required to submit in order to sell in our state, and in fact wouldn’t answer direct questions from the Council Members. That includes providing a copy of even one toxicological study on the health effects of the continued use of the product we use. So much for the rhetoric and double-talk.

  4. Have you noticed that more and more people from outside of Wellington, non-Wellington residents, are being allowed to have an influence on Wellington matters?

    At the last Council meeting, people from Broward County and Loxahatchee were advocating for changes in Wellington.

    Many people who supported and advocated for the Horse Park on Wellington owned land, were from Loxhatchee.

    Wonder how Wellington residents would fare at Loxahatchee meetings and at Broward County meetings?

    Maybe Wellington should allow Loxahatchee residents and Broward County residents to vote in our elections, too.

    The residents of Wellington are being manipulated by outside residents and the Council listens to those outsiders.

    If the Council bends to Loxahatchee, Broward residents; then also bend to Homeland residents!

  5. The forced-fluoridation experiment is medical malpractice on an industrial scale. Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications which are delivered via public water supplies. Medicating public water supplies with any chemical violates the ethical principle of informed consent, is entirely indiscriminate, results in the random dosing of residents since the fluoride dose received from water and other sources is uncontrolled, and is environmentally irresponsible because the vast majority of tap water is not ingested, so the environmental load is vastly greater than it needs to be. Medicating public water supplies means that politicians are subjecting everyone to treatment which no doctor can legally impose on anyone, and is surely the most ham-fisted method of drug delivery ever devised.

    Medicating public water supplies with fluoridation chemicals is especially egregious, because fluoride is a cumulative toxin with a half life in the body of around 20 years, there was no good quality scientific research which indicated that forced-fluoridation was anything but dangerous and useless in the 1940s and there still isn’t any, the best quality scientific research which has been conducted indicates that forced-fluoridation is in fact both dangerous and useless, the fluoridation chemicals which are used are industrial grade rather than pharmaceutical grade, and fluoride is not biodegradable. The forced-fluoridation experiment is immoral, illegal, irrational, archaic, pseudoscientific, and not worth the risk.

    The following are some good sources of information: the Fluoride Action Network website, Declan Waugh’s work, the books The Case Against Fluoride and The Fluoride Deception, the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, and the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride.

    • Ah, Germrat, the leprechaun from Ireland appears.

      Well, in this country, Germrat, no court of last resort has EVER ruled that fluoride in the public water is a medicine, nor is it forced medication on the unwilling.

      One of our great, late Senators, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts”.

      Your opinions in the U.S. don’t mean squat, Germrat.

    • This comment by Dan Germouse is very typical of the misinformation gleaned from the dubious sites he considers to be “good sources of information”. The sites he lists are those to which antifluoridationists constantly and deceptively attempt to steer readers. These “good sources” in actuality, are as follows:

      Fluoride Action Network- a highly biased antifluoridationist organization in New York

      Declan Waugh- an Irishman who has no degree higher than the undergraduate college level, whose “work” has not been peer-reviewed, has not published in any respected scientific journal, and which has been totally refuted and discredited by his own Irish government through its Irish Expert Body on Fluoride and Health.

      The Case Against Fluoride- a “book” written by Paul Connett, a chemist who purports to be an “authority” on fluoride, yet who has published not one peer-reviewed, scientific article on the subject. Instead of publishing his work through the peer-review process, he opted instead to publish his opinions in a non peer-reviewed “book”.

      The Fluoride Deception- another non peer-reviewed “book” not written by a scientist, healthcare authority, or scientific researcher, but by an “investigative reporter”.

      The National Research Council report on Fluoride- the only reputable reference in this whole list. However, this Council was not charged with and did not engage in any evaluation of water fluoridation. It is irrelevant to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm

      The “peer-reviewed” journal Fluoride- “There are some periodicals that pose as peer-reviewed scientific journals but are not. One such is the journal “Fluoride.” This quarterly publication, which is also available also on the Internet, appears biased toward anti-fluoridation opinion and presents experimental work of questionable quality. Whereas their instructions to authors (found at http://www.fluoride-journal.com/papers.htm) suggest a review process, an examination of a few dozen articles reveals that the same authors appear repeatedly (and tend to cite each other) and the experimental work is poorly describe and executed. There may be quality science aired in this journal, but ALL articles we examined have an anti-fluoride theme, and many contained significant technical or scientific errors.”

      —-Impact of Fluoridation of the Municipal Drinking Water Supply:
      Review of the Literature
      Prepared for:
      Escambia County Utilities Authority
      Prepared by:
      The Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation
      University of West Florid
      Joe Eugene Lepo & Richard A. Snyder. May 2000

      “Fluoridealert.org”-the highly biased antifluoridationist website of the highly biased New York antifluoridationist organization, FAN

      ffwireland.blogspot.com,au/- a biased, antifluoridationist “blog”

      Enviro.ie/downloads.htms- a biased, antifluoridationist website from which may be downloaded biased, antifluoridationist “literature”

      The Fluoride Deception- see above

      http://Www.nap.edu- NRC Report. See above

      “Fluorideresearch.org”- a highly biased antifluoridationist website.

      Readers would be far better served by obtaining accurate information from reliable, respected, and original sources, rather than that “information” filtered and edited through these antifluoridationist “good sources of information”.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • I would like to put a few of the above issues to rest:

      “Sierra Club and other citizen groups, have opposed fluoride”

      The Sierra Club appears more neutral on the issue of fluoridation, leaving it up to communities. The EPA — which has authority over fluoride in drinking water — considers fluoridation safe for humans and the environment.

      “introduces unnecessary additives into the water”

      In fact, fluoridation adds a few additional fluoride ions to the water that comes out of the tap. Fluorosilic acid is monitored for purity with standards that exceed those of the FDA. And it breaks down, when added to water, into just water, a bit of silica (filtered out), and fluoride ions.

      “unnecessary in affluent communities”

      Fluoridation benefits everyone. There is no other measure that can continually re-mineralize teeth. It reduces cavities an additional 20-40% over the use of other dental hygiene measures. That’s BIG savings in dental services.

      • milan-mitic@bigpond.coman 75 year old man drinking fluoridated water
        and eating with fluoride contaminated food
        accumulates about 20 to 50 deadly fatal
        doses of fluoride
        in his body = arthritis and other nasty diseases.

        See villages around the world suffering from accumulation of fluoride
        in their bodies from natural fluoride in soil more than 5ppm.

        at 30 they look old with all old age diseases
        1ppm in drinking water is not little in long time

        • Milan Mitan

          Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, not 5 ppm. Effects from a lifetime of consuming water with 5 ppm fluoride, added to whatever other environmental and dietary sources of fluoride may be found in “villages around the world” are irrelevant to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. In the United States. This is precisely why, in the 68 year history of water fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects.

          In regard to your 75 year old man……water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (mg/liter = ppm). Thus for every liter of water he consumes, he ingests 0.7 mg of fluoride. The average daily water consumption for adults is 2-3 liters. Just assume for the sake of example, that this gentleman consumes double that amount, an excessive 6 liters of water per day. This would mean that he ingests 4.2 mg fluoride per day. The CDC and the Institute of Medicine estimate that of the fluoride ingested from ALL sources per day, 75% is from water and beverages. Thus a simple algebraic equation will show that the amount of fluoride ingested, from ALL sources, on a daily basis by this excessive water drinking 75 year old is 5.6 mg.

          The Institute of Medicine has established that the upper limit of daily fluoride ingestion, from all sources, before adverse effects may occur is 10 mg. Thus, your 75 year old who drinks an excessive 6 liters per day will only ingest slightly more than half the fluoride necessary for adverse effects to occur.


          Steven D. Slott, DDS

  6. And those 365 dentists signed after a world-wide campaign by Connett’s FAN. It is almost beyond understanding how anyone would have the nerve to “brag” that world-wide less than 400 dentists think fluoridation is bad. Quite obviously the important fact here is that so few think this . .

    This statement simply re-affirms the overwhelming professional and scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and beneficial

    • Actually, you and i both know that most dentists really don’t care about fluoridation. It takes brave, smart dentists, willing to take the heat from misinformed political people like you, after they actually read the literature to come out opposed to fluoridation. You can read about “Billy Budd” here

      The wealthy dentist website reported that in an anonymous survey, 56% of dentists opposed fluoridation.

      Here are some dentists who aren’t afraid to speak out against fluoridation:

      Jay Harris Levy DDS Corrects misinformation put out by Portland, Oregon Pediatrician Dr. Wu

      New Zealand Dentist Blows Whistle on Fluoridation

      Dr. Anna Goodwin speaks out about water fluoridation

      Dr. Jane Beck speaks out about water fluoridation

      Dentist Dr. Lawrie Brett speaks out about water fluoridation

      Dentist, Dr. Andrew Harms, former President of the Australian Dental Association, once promoted fluoridation until he read the science.
      Harms says, “I deeply regret this … when I did read the science about 10 years ago, I started to get serious concerns.”

      Dr. Harms says, “To my amazement, when I tried to raise the issue with the [Australian] Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and … integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers, who heavily compromise our University,” says Harms in a video documentary, Firewater.

      Dentist and fluoride researcher, Hardy Limeback BSc,PhD,DDS discusses the drawbacks of water fluoridation

      Dentist Bill Osmunson, promoted fluoridation for 25 years until his patients persuaded him to read the science, “It [was] like a knee in the gut,” he says. “Science has turned against fluoridation and we must stop adding fluoride to water.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk

      Dentist Caree Alexander, a former Navy practitioner, then a private practice dentist for 20 years, says fluoridation is “totally ineffective and actually damaging as well.”(5)

      Dr. Alexander says, “When I graduated from University, we weren’t given any information about where [fluoride] came from. We all assumed it was [pharmaceutical-grade] calcium fluoride.”

      Prominent NYC dentist and Huffington Post Contributor, Dr. Thomas Connelly, writes, “I do not see the good in fluoridating our drinking water … To me, the ‘bad’ it can (potentially) do outweighs the good.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-p-connelly-dds/mouth-health-fluoridated_b_641767.html

      Dentist Hardy Limeback, Ph.D., University of Toronto Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, apologized for promoting fluoridation because toxicology research shows the purported benefits no longer outweigh the risks.(http://cof-cof.ca/dr-hardy-limebacks-blog-list-view/)

      Dentist David Kennedy, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT), past president and Fluoride Information Officer, says, “Water fluoridation delivers a drug to infants at a level which would be gross malpractice if prescribed by a physician or dentist.” ( http://www.sw4sc.org/MWDweb.htm ) IAOMT is a network of dental, medical and research professionals which supports the effort to inform consumers about health risks from water fluoridation.

      Dentist Jennifer Luke, Ph.D., says, “My [published] work showed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland and lowers melatonin production in animals. I find it extraordinary that no government promoting fluoridation has chosen to pursue these worrying findings.”

      Dentist and Doctor of Medical Science, Elise Bassin, published scientifically unrefuted evidence showing that fluoride can increase the risk of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer) in boys and young men.

      • Funny, nyscof. You further demonstrate, along with Germouse, the type of “sources”‘you deem to be reliable. In this case it’s claims such as “you and I both know”, “YouTube” videos and a “survey” of those readers who responded to an online “newsletter” of a dental management company, “the Wealthy Dentist”.

        As if your continued efforts to use a negligible number of medical/dental providers, worldwide, to deceive readers into assuming that there is any significant opposition, whatsoever, to fluoridation amongst respected healthcare providers, isn’t ridiculous enough, let me point out a couple of items about those whom you quote:

        Jennifer Luke: “Children are now exposed to more F than ever before. Fluorides are the cornerstone of all caries preventative programs. The substantial reduction in the incidence of dental caries in the western world over the past fifty years has been largely attributed to the access to fluoridated water supplies and the increased exposure to F in dental products. The fluoridation of water supplies is an important public health measure. It is endorsed by the WHO, the European Union directives, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the BMA, and the medical and dental professions (Samuels, 1993)”.

        Jennifer Anne Luke

        In regard to David Kennedy, past President of the fringe group IAOMT:

        “The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the “smoking tooth” video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson’s and autism. They sell filling removal kits for “dentists” along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed “research,” and supports “health freedom.”


        Elise Bassin’s “unrefuted” evidence:

        “Chester Douglass, principal investigator of the Harvard Study, advises readers to be cautious when interpreting the [Bassin] findings, noting the following reasons:

        • The preliminary findings from the overall analysis of the cases identified between 1993 and 2000 (second set of cases) do not show an association between osteosarcoma and fluoride in drinking water.

        – The cases had been identified from the same hospitals within the same orthopaedic departments and the same pathology departments diagnosing osteosarcoma, and similar methods of fluoride exposure

        Bone specimens were also provided by many of the cases – preliminary analysis of bone specimens suggests fluoride level in the bone is not associated with osteosarcoma.

        The 1990 NIEHS National toxicology Program study found an association with high levels of fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma in male rats. However, the findings of their second study did not find an association.

        Some of the limitations noted by Bassin et al in their paper include:

        The estimates of fluoride in drinking water at each residence do not reflect the actual consumption of fluoride.

        The study did no obtain biologic markers for fluoride uptake in bone.

        The actual amount of fluoride in a fluoridated supply may vary (within guideline levels).

        Natural fluoride levels can vary over time (the researchers thought this unlikely for the time spent at each residence).

        There is a lack of data on other potential confounders.

        Fluoride may not be causative agent
        – another factor in drinking water may be correlated with the presence of fluoride.

        Data to assess fluoride exposure from
        diet, industrial sources of other sources such as pesticides was not available – cases

        may have been exposed to other unknown factors such as contaminants or carcinogens in the bottled or well water, with the fluoride in these products or natural sources irrelevant, regardless of the concentration.

        For more information refer http://www.health.qld. gov.au/health_professionals/”

        —–Douglass, C.W. and K. Joshipura, Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes Control, 2006(17): p.481-482

        Comparing this small handful of dubious “opposition” provided by nyscof to the overwhelming consensus of worldwide highly respected healthcare organizations, healthcare experts, healthcare providers, US Surgeons General, public health experts, and respected regulatory agencies, all of whom fully support the public health initiative of water fluoridation…..speaks for itself.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • These mistaken ideas have the potential for tragic consequences . .an entire lifetime of poorer oral health for today’s children.

        There is just too much there to respond to all . .I’ll pick the Luke/Pineal gland issue.

        1. To my knowledge, Jennifer Luke is not a dentist. I’d appreciate your posting the documentation for her dental degree.

        2. The paper she did for he PhD thesis had exactly 11 cadavers. It is beyond understanding that you believe public health policy should be set by a study of only 11 cases. Quite clearly these numbers cannot lead to any statistically significant conclusions. Her paper includes no statements of statistical significance.

        3. The paper found that the pineal fluoride did not correlate with fluoride intake. We know from the Montreal:Toronto bone paper that while bone fluoride is higher with fluoridation the bone strength is not effected and was equal in both cities. Says Luke: “Therefore, unlike bone, pineal fluoride concentrations are not indicators of long-term fluoride exposure and body burden.”

        4. The paper properly states that calcification is the pineal is a normal biological process. Since fluoride deposits wherever calcium hydroxyapatite exists, that the pineal fluoride content is higher than muscle, a non-calcified soft tissue is trivially obvious. The author clearly states that fluoride deposition is secondary to the hydroxyapatite: “The high fluoride levels in the pineal are presumably due to the large surface area of the HA crystallites both intra- and extracellularly.”

        5. Luke’s paper made no observations whatsoever between melatonin production and fluoride in the pineal. Even if there were a correlation, any functional change would be more likely due to calcification. The process of dystrophic calcification is a well understood age related phenomena in many tissues.

        Readers should understand that your terribly mistaken view of pineal function and water fluoridation is typical for the Fluoride Action Network’s entire chapter and verse opposition.

  7. There are 44 different chemicals that can be added to public water in the United States. Everyone of them is toxic and requires special handling at the point of entry into a water system. I’m sure that Mr. Riebe knows this, and he knows that the CDC and the AWWA can provide engineering and technical support for any chemical that is used in a public water supply in the United States.

    Regarding HFSA as the fluoride additive used in Wellington, here’s a little chemistry lesson for the readers:

    Hydrofluoric Acid dissolved in water:
    HF + H2O = H+ & F- & H2O

    HFSA dissolved in water
    HFSA + H2O = H2O & silica & F-

    Here is what the CDC says about fluoride ions all being the same:

    Fluoride Additives Are Not Different From Natural Fluoride

    Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as HFSA or sodium fluoride. Two recent scientific studies listed below demonstrate that the same fluoride ion is present in naturally occurring fluoride or fluoride drinking water additives and that no intermediates or other products were observed at pH levels as low as 3.5. In addition, fluoride metabolism is not affected differently by the chemical compounds nor are they affected by whether the fluoride is present naturally or artificially.

    The ionic speciation study conducted in 2006 mentioned previously (Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Re-examination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by fluoride NMR and pH measurement. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:8:2572)
    The pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride was studied by a 2008 study (G.M. Whitford, F.C. Sampaio, C.S. Pinto, A.G. Maria, V.E.S. Cardoso, M.A.R. Buzalaf, Pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride: Lack of effect of chemical compound, Archives of Oral Biology, 53 (2008) 1037–1041)


    Fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion…

    • And an arsenic ion is an arsenic ion… Fluoride, Lead, Arsenic. All cumulative, all toxic, but only one still has a marketing department.

      • David Green

        You left out every other substance known to man. There are none that are NOT toxic, including plain water. That’s the reason for monitoring concentration levels of everything we ingest. The difference between toxicity and safety is concentration.

        Arsenic is so prevalent in the environment that we ingest it every day, regardless of whether we live in fluoridated areas or not. In fact, there is evidence that arsenic at the level found in the environment naturally, which is the level at which it is sometimes detected in fluoridated water, is an essential nutrient for humans. Attempts to use this minuscule amount of arsenic to fear-monger against water fluoridation are irresponsible and demonstrative of ignorance of basic science.

        —–Nutritional requirements for boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic: current knowledge and speculation.

        Nielsen FH.
        Journal FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

  8. There is an overwhelming professional and scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and beneficial.

    There are over 100 prestigious scientific and professional organizations representing many thousand members who recognize the importance of community water fluoridation to better oral health. They turn to systematic reviews of all the relevant scientific literature upon which to base their support.

    On the other hand there are a tiny handful of single minded, politically effective individuals with “alternative” viewpoints.

    One of the world’s most respected toxicologists, selected to head the exhaustive 2006 study by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) which reported on the health risks of fluoride at 4 ppm said recently after his statements had been distorted and misused by fluoridation opponents:

    “I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level.” – John Doull, PhD, Chairman of the 2006 NAS Research Committee report titled Fluoride In Drinking Water – A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.

    The person referred to by Jack Cook is a retired chemistry professor with no peer reviewed articles nor credentials in toxicology.

    The benefits to older citizens given Florida’s large retirement population should be particularly important. Fluoridation prevents cavities on the exposed root surfaces, an important reason for tooth loss. Older people’s experience with their very expensive dental work including crowns, root canals, implants are a clear reason to continue fluoridation. The newest data from the Delta Dental Insurance Company showed that a cavity filled as a teenager costs over $6,000 over a lifetime.

    Fluoridation benefits everyone and at a cost of as little as $.30 per year is a bargain insurance policy against large costs later in life.

    I’m hoping Wellington’s decision makers will heed America’s pediatricians and the American Public Health Association and embrace what Surgeon General C. Everett Koop called – “the single most important commitment a community can make to its children and to future generations.”

    • The law firm of Covington and Burling were involved in the “Whitecoat Project” set up to recruit doctors and scientists to pimp for the tobacco industry, often without revealing their connections. Both John Doull and Bernard Wagner, chairs of the NRC (1993) and NRC (2006) fluoride reports, were involved in providing the tobacco industry a veneer of “respectability”

      • Very typical for NYSCOF to tell here only part of a story that superficially appears on her side. In point of fact, Dr. Doull has had an important role in tobacco safety analysis.

        John Doull served in the Navy during WWII. He is a physician (M.D.) as well as a PhD pharmacologist specializing in toxicology. He was on the Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors of the American Council on Science and Health when their important book, “Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Health Risk or Health Hype?”, was published in 1999 advising that second hand cigarette smoke has significant adverse health consequences.

        Quoted here from p 5-6

        ACSH’s analysis yields the following conclusions:

        Irritation of the eyes, nose, and respiratory tract is the most common and firmly established adverse health effect associated with exposure to ETS.

        Exposed infants and children, in particular, are at increased risk of respiratory infections, middle-car effusion (fluid inside the eardrum), and the exacerbation of asthma and other respiratory symptoms.

        Exposed adults are at increased risk for respiratory ailments, ETS may aggravate the symptoms of preexisting asthma and emphysema.

        Extensive epidemiological evidence indicates that ETS exposure is a weak risk factor in the development of lung cancer in nonsmokers regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.

        Epidemiological evidence also suggests that ETS is a weak risk factor for heart disease in nonsmoking spouses of smokers and in nonsmokers regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.

        Other reported links between ETS and chronic disease (breast cancer. cervical cancer. and Leukemia, for example, have not been scientifically established and are not addressed in this report.

        The scientific evidence that tobacco smoke in indoor environments is associated with acute and chronic respiratory illnesses, particularly in children, supports the adaptation of measures designed to reduce or prevent exposure to ETS. Such strategies may include increasing ventilation. eliminating the source of ETS by reducing active smoking, and limiting levels Of exposure through indoor smoking restrictions. Prevention efforts should target highly exposed individuals (such as children and nonsmoking spouses of smokers, and workers in smoke-filled workplaces) and certain populations that are especially vulnerable to the risks of ETS.

        Dr. Doull has a very large bibliography. Interested readers should go to http://www.pubmed.org and Search for Doull J to view his extensive accomplishments of peer reviewed scientific articles. A search for Connett P yields only 5 hits three of which are merely letters.

        This is an egregious ad hominem attack; entirely typical and equally misleading.

      • Anyone still doubting Dr. John Doull’s expertise or prestige should read the June 2013 Academy of Toxicological Sciences Newsletter.

        The lead article describes Dr. Doull’s receiving a prestigious Career Achievement Award. Dr. Doull’s amazing career in pharmacology and toxicology and a listing of the many awards and career accomplishments are further enumerated in the Newsletter’s article titled “John Doull Receives ATS Mildred Christian Career Achievement Award.”

        Anyone wishing to further judge the error of NYSCOF’s ad hominem attack on this prestigious American scientist should read the ATS Newsletter at:


        It is egregiously arrogant for a person with only a degree in media communications to impugn Dr. Doull’s scientific integrity.

  9. This story is hopeful in one respect – at least it has been published so that Floridians can look up information on the issue for themselves.

    Last year we attempted to present our side in Brooksville to the point of sending our most knowledgeable and experienced toxicologist for a debate at their council meeting. The opposition played politics and pretended that our expert toxicologist with 23 years experience of university teaching was not creditable. He therefore refused to debate at the meeting. Our expert then made his presentation and answered questions at the invitation of the mayor. The opposition then complained that his side was not allowed to be heard. Actually, the proponents of fluoridation had presented plentiful but significantly slanted information at a previous meeting several months earlier. Pure politics – very bad science. And they are being backed with time and corporate money that far surpass anything at our disposal.

    There are two reasons you cannot find an opponent of fluoridation to debate in Florida – 1. The largest producer of toxic fluoride, Mosaic Corporation, mines phosphate and distributes fluoride from the middle of the state. We suspect they and a formidable lobby are spending tremendous amounts of money to maintain the good image of fluoride and hide the real science against it – 2. The majority of the public has preconceived notions of fluoridation’s safety and efficacy tendered by almost 70 years of propaganda by the companies that make a tremendous profit from dumping this hazardous pollution by product in our drinking water – a substance that cannot be legally dumped in any natural body of water in the entire country, but magically becomes a product the moment it is placed in rubber lined tankers, shipped across country, and dumped in your drinking water.

    I won’t even bother to mention the incredibly insidious mathematical waste of trying to deliver a non-approved medication (FDA) to an entire population through water utilities. Much less than one percent of treated water actually makes it to the tap as drinking water. The rest goes down into the sewer to become an unacknowledged pollutant in our environment.

    The vote in Brooksville, despite our side providing almost six months of scientific papers and all the ethical and legal information we could provide, was in favor of fluoridation. We suspect that someone was threatened politically. So, for now, the resources for fluoridation are far in excess of what we can spend against the policy. A very large number of us work this issue for absolutely nothing except our knowledge of the truth and our determination to improve the health of the handful of countries in the world that insist on continuing fluoridation policy at all costs.

    Good luck with your debate search Wellington. I hope you have a mayor as courageous as the public servant in Brooksville. If indeed you need information, you can find more than what you will ever need on http://www.FluorideAlert.org without resorting one moment of wasted time with a debate. And, a vote against this dangerous and long term public intoxication will be one more step in the direction of good health for the citizens you represent.

    • The comment here by Mr. Cook is full of the standard conspiracy conjecture that characterizes the majority of fluoridation opposition. It also contains the standard total lack of substantiation for any of his claims, also characteristic of fluoridation opponents.

      Accurate information on the public health initiative of water fluoridation is readily available from reliable, respected, and authoritative sources. Rather than allowing fluoridation opponents to deceptively lead them to misinformation disseminated by fringe activists from New York which include the unqualified “expert toxicologist” to which Mr. cook refers, and the commenter “nyscof” who attempts to steer readers to the biased, antifluoridationist website, “fluoridealert.org”, Wellington leaders would far better serve ther constituents by obtaining accurate information from primary sources. The websites of the CDC, the EPA, the National Sanitary Sanitary Foundation, the ADA, and the World Health Organization (WHO) each has a wealth of accurate information on water fluoridation readily available to anyone.

      Responsible leadership should question the motives and credibility of those who constantly seek to deceive and misdirect attention to sources of misinformation. The science of water fluoridation speaks for itself. It is simply a matter of exerting the effort to obtain proper information from reliable sources, and paying heed to the true, qualified, healthcare experts who will provide them with proper, scientifically supported recommendations.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • The reader should note that the group of proponents with the most to say about the virtues of fluoridation in this comment section resort to name calling and endorsements all over the internet rather than sticking with the science, ethics and legality behind the issue. You simply can’t fit the entire argument against fluoridation onto a comments section. I learned long ago that there are paid and unpaid proponents of fluoridation whose job it is to take up our time with propaganda and protect this insidious policy at all costs. This article comment section is a prime example. Its a common political tactic when you don’t want the public to see both sides of an issue – or the truth.

        Can you imagine how many bad policies (both political and medical) have continued for so many decades because some official organization or individual “recommended” or “endorsed” them. That applies to a public that day to day swears a practice is good simply because an official agency said so and they couldn’t see anyone being hurt by it. I wish I had a dime for every time someone responded with that one. It’s a prime indicator that they don’t understand how the human body works over the long term.

        I’m happy to say that I’ve studied the issue since 2007, spoken to “experts” on both sides, and decided to take as much fluoride as I could out of my family’s life and foods (admittedly difficult). I’m in better health now than I’ve been in my entire life and my doctor has been amazed at my recovery. I had 25 years of mysterious symptoms that four of my doctors (you know, those folks with PhD after their names) couldn’t identify, much less treat. It only took two weeks of getting off fluoride and fluoridated water to see a real difference in my health and my teeth. Unfortunately, I know people with severe fluoride poisoning who will never be able to recover. Once a biological function is destroyed by fluoride, the effect is permanent. And, fluoride toxin comes from many different sources, not just public tap water.

        I’m convinced through personal experience and research. So, needless to say, no matter what the propagandists or industrial proponents have to say, once an intelligent person sees and understands the mass deception, its impossible to conceive of fluoridation as “safe and effective.”

        Oh, and to inform everyone about the toxicologist – he is Dr. Paul Connett, who taught environmental chemistry at St. Lawrence University for 23 years. He is literally one of a few world experts on fluoride and fluoridation and its associated research. To prove his committment, he is now the director of the Fluoride Action Network. That is why the proponents do not want to debate him. They always look silly doing so.

        • Mr. Cook yet once again provides the exact type of unsubstantiated claims, conjecture, anecdotes and personal opinions that are characteristic of most antifluoridationist “arguments”. Wellington leaders would be well served to realize that these type of comments are precisely the flimsy foundation on which antifluoridationists base their opposition, and are obviously totally void of merit. Instead of allowing thenselves to be misled by this type of conjecture, responsible leaders would far better serve their constituencies by accessing accurate facts, supported by valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. This information is readily available from primary, reliable, and respected sources such as the the CDC, the EPA, the ADA, the NSF, and the WHO, among others.

          Paul Connett is a retired chemist/activist who has no healthcare education, no healthcare exoerience, and has not published one single piece of peer-reviewed scientific literature on fluoridation, a topic of which he inexplicably purports to be an “authority” of some sort. He is the Director of the highly biased antifluoridationist fringe group out of New York, the Fluoride Action Network, an organization which has no purpose, whatsoever, other than to oppose the public health initiative of water fluoridation.

          As far as the issue of “payment” which Mr. Cook raises, there are no fluoride proponents to my knowledge who receive any compensation, whatsoever, for their advocating for better health of all our citizens through the public health initiative of water fluoridation. Now, contrast this to Paul Connett and his afilliates, who DO profit from keeping this issue alive in the following manner:

          1. The antifluoridationist/activist, Paul Connett- Paul’s “book” on fluoridation, which he pushes at every conceivable opportunity, and from which he receives royalties, sells for $25 per copy. He claims to donate all his royalties to his non-profit Fluoride Action Network, FAN. However, since it seems likely that FAN funds all or part of his fluoride-chasing, trips trips to Australia, New Zealand, Europe, all around the United States, and wherever else he chases it, his “donation” would seem to be little more than a tax strategy.

          Additionally, both Paul and his wife each receive $1000 per month from their non-profit organization.

          2. The antifluoridationist, William Hirzy. Hirzy is the paid lobbyist for Connett’s antifluoridationist group, FAN. 

          3. “Attorney Deal”. Connett afilliate, James Deal has a website devoted entirely to attempts to stir up frivolous class-action lawsuits against fluoridation, from which he would presumably would profit. 

          4. Connett affiliate, Alex Jones. Jones most recently began pushing a concoction that purportedly “removes” fluoride from the body. 

          5. Richard Sauerheber, PhD. Sauerhaber is the “scientific consultant” for “Attorney Deal” in his class-action stirring attempts. A look at Deal’s website will show Sauerhaber and his opinions plastered all over it. What fees Sauerhaber may or may not receive for his fluoride “consulting” is anyone’s guess.

          6. Whatever various family members of Connett, and others who are paid by his antifluoridationist group, for their fluoride chasing activities. 

          7. As FAN operates under the umbrella of another activist organization, its full expenditures are not readily transparent and available as would be expected of such a non-profit group which asks for donations from the public.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Should we be impressed that 365 dentists have signed your old petition when there are over 180,000 dentists in the USA who support fluoridation as safe and effective? Likewise for the vast majority of America’s 834,000 working physicians.

      Your motto suggesting that opposition to fluoridation is “growing” seems a tad bit of an overstatement, no?

Comments are closed.