The movement to remove industrial sodium fluoride from the world’s water supply has been growing in recent years, with evidence coming out against the additive from several sources.

Now, a report from the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, has officially classified fluoride as a neurotoxin, in the same category as arsenic, lead and mercury.

The news was broken by author Stefan Smyle and disseminated by the Facebook page Occupy Food, which linked to the report published in The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3, in the March 2014 edition, by authors Dr. Phillippe Grandjean and Philip J. Landrigan, MD. The report can be viewed by clicking here.

Industrial Chemicals Identified
As noted in the summary of the report, a systematic review identified five different similar industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene.

The summary goes on to state that six additional developmental neurotoxicants have also now been identified: manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. The authors added that even more of these neurotoxicants remain undiscovered.

ADHD, Dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments
In the Lancet report, the authors propose a global prevention strategy, saying that “untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.”Also in the report, they note that neurodevelopmental disabilities, including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, are now affecting millions of children worldwide in what they call a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.”

They continue: “To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.”

The report coincides with 2013 findings by a Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health that concluded that children in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores that those who live in areas with low amounts of fluoride in their water supplies.

Fluoride also linked to Cancers
Sodium fluoride in drinking water has also been linked to various cancers. It is functionally different than the naturally-occurring calcium fluoride, and commonly added to drinking water supplies and used by dentists and in dental products who posit that it is useful for dental health.

Currently, fluoride is added to water supplies across much of North America, but as this list of countries that ban or reject water fluoridation shows, the practice is actually not too common, or banned entirely throughout most of Europe and in several other developed nations across the world.

Yeah when the websites eatlocalgrown.com definitely going to question their interpretation of the findings.

So the professional doctors and their findings are therefore nullified because of the source of the article?

Interesting article.

Can someone remind me why we add industrial chemical waste to our water? Surely its not because we're not brushing our teeth.

That was the original intention yes.

-PB

The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.

Although official reports of lead concentrations in the study villages in China were not available, some studies reported high percentage (95–100%) of low lead exposure (less than the standard of 0.01 mg/L) in drinking-water samples in villages from several study provinces (Bi et al. 2010; Peng et al. 2008; Sun 2010).

...

The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang SX et al. 2007); thus, in many cases concentrations were above the levels recommended (0.7–1.2 mg/L; DHHS) or allowed in public drinking water (4.0 mg/L; U.S. EPA) in the United States (U.S. EPA 2011).

well my family do not have access to fluoride or chlorine in our water supply as we live off water collected from our roof and stored in underground concrete water tanks, no filtering other than a sand box trap on the input water pipe, and all my kids have great teeth are healthy and we all have lovely soft hair from water........ less is more

sorry it's the truth, is that not statistically science??

and what did the aboriginals of each nation do before fluoride and chlorine??

Interesting article.

Can someone remind me why we add industrial chemical waste to our water? Surely its not because we're not brushing our teeth.

I thought they were adding flouride to water since World War 2 as a 'calming mechanism' trick on the general population?

Its not valid as evidence against fluorine in any quantity. Sample size of one has no valid basis as proof all it shows is a weak correlation. Youve got no variables controlled so how can you prove its the lack of fluorine? What about your families genetics, diet, environmental factors? Saying we have no fluorine, our teeth are good therefore the evidence in favour for fluorine is wrong is horribly flawed logic. A sample size of one, or even one paper has no "statistically science" proof because it doesnt prove anything.

And even so your anectodal evidence doesnt address fluorine as opposed to raised fluorine.

And where would your proof be that a lack of fluorine in aboriginal communities leads to better dental health?

Edited by RedKat: 12/11/2015 05:54:03 PM

Died before they were 30.

Dosage matters when determining whether a chemical is "toxic".

Leafy vegetables contain arsenic - that doesn't make them bad for you.

well lots of foods contain forms of fluoride & fluorite.

So what? You aren't addressing the point which is that ANY chemical can be toxic depending on the dosage.

What harm are you alleging the fluoride in the water supply creates?

Why is life expectancy longer than it has ever been?

Why isn't there any broadbased evidence at a population level to show that fluoride is correlated with health problems?

The simple answer is that, at the dosages that exist in the public water supply, it simply is not unhealthy.

as opposed to survey companies who are engaged by companies who have something to gain specifically targetting the correct demographic to achieve the desired result.....that's good science right?


as far as variable go, what about the variables in the people who are being forced feed this shit.......do you even know how the fluoride was introduced and where it came from?????? i seriously doubt it

Ahhh yes, when all else fails blame the corporations!

So easy to just dismiss the weight of scientific evidence without providing any ACTUAL EVIDENCE of SPECIFIC INSTANCES of "corporate dodginess" affecting health studies. The mere involvement of 'big pharma' is enough to just wave away the mountains of evidence.

I have no problem with questioning the motives of any profit-seeking company, however there needs to be actual evidence before you can dismiss the evidence.

Go on - are you going to argue vaccines cause autism? I'm waiting for it!

Died before they were 30.

Why is life expectancy longer than it has ever been?

This sort of thing (blaming corporations because they're big and profitable) is terribly damaging to the world. People wilfully ignore some of the great things these corporations do simply because they 'don't trust' a company that rakes it in.

What is completely retarded is that the only way new drugs are made is from these profits.

I do not understand some people and their ignorant paranoia.