THE UNFILTERED TRUTH
Water Fluoridation Poster in the 4H STEAM contest; received Best of Show award
I’ve been researching water fluoridation for over a year now. Am I an expert in this topic? No, but I like to think that the research I’ve compiled has helped my readers gain a better understanding of the risks and ultimately push for the freedom to be able to choose whether to ingest fluoride. It is hard to believe that the U.S. government- a system designed to protect its people- had solely implemented water fluoridation in its own interests, as will be discussed in this follow- up, but I think we can all agree that it truly is the duty of the American people to be the biggest check on their government.
I’m publishing this follow- up (a speech, as well as a transcript) on my water fluoridation paper I wrote last year because there are a few new subtopics I’d like to share. In this follow- up I cover water fluoridation’s effects on the body at the level you drink every day; my personal motivation behind all of my research; and finally, the corruption behind the implementation of water fluoridation in the U.S.- because the American people were never the ones benefiting.
“Culture kills innovation in its crib.” - Atul Gawande, Being Mortal
Here is the link to my speech if you want to go directly to YouTube: https://youtu.be/rfPCj4kiuwM
TRANSCRIPT
“Almost 100 years ago my great grandfather did something no kid had ever done. He whined. He said- and parents if you need to cover your ears for this- I completely understand- Mommmmmm my head hurtsssss. And no, I’m sorry to all the parents out there who were praying for me to give a speech about how to get their kid to stop whining- I’m a highschooler, not God. But unlike my brother, my great grandfather didn’t whine because he didn’t want to go to sleep. He whined because it hurt. Severe migraines, stained brown teeth, and the calcification of the ligaments in his feet- all accompanied him for the rest of his life. Because you see my great grandfather, Jesse DeVaney, lived in Douglas, AZ from 1928 to 1948. According to the University of Arizona’s College of Agriculture records, in 1932 the water in Douglas, Arizona, was fluoridated to 5.2mg/L. To give you some context, the E.P.A.'s hazardous limit is 4mg/L- which means that the fluoride level in Douglas was 7 times higher than .7mg/L- the EPA’s acceptable limit of fluoride. But this isn’t just a story about my great grandfather, this is the story of many people around the globe who drink fluoridated water everyday. So today, let’s examine the dark history of water fluoridation, its effects on the body even at the .7mg/L level deemed “safe” by the EPA, and the solution to tooth decay in America- without the use of artificial water fluoridation.
The history of water fluoridation is riddled with injury and corruption. In the 1940s, heavy metal industries were being sued by farmers for dumping the toxic byproducts from their factories into local waterways, destroying crops and cattle. And rather than disposing of the fluoride byproduct properly, the aluminum production company Alcoa hired biochemist Gerald Cox to try and prove fluoride was beneficial to humans so the company could avoid lawsuits and continue dumping fluoride and other hazardous materials like arsenic into waterways. Cox eventually came to the conclusion that there was better dental health in 28 cities with fluoridated water. However, according to the Standard Times, Cox cherry-picked only select cities that would support the recommendation to add fluoride to water. Later, in 1947, Oscar Ewing, previously the legal counsel at Alcoa, was appointed the head of the Federal Securities Agency- the parent organization of the US Public Health Service. Ewing was eventually able to make sure fluoride slipped by the FDA’s safety check. The studies that then went on to justify putting fluoride into water for the public assurance were observational, included bias, uncontrolled variables, were done before the use of fluoridated toothpaste and had not even been completed by the time fluoride was put into 60% of public water systems. Water fluoridation sparked concern for scientists who saw the lack of evidence of possible health risks. Not only that, but ethical concerns arose as fluoride activists pushed for nation-wide water fluoridation, overlooking an individual’s right to choose whether to take the risks of ingesting fluoride. Today, 70% of Americans drink fluoridated water. And for many years, public health services have claimed that water fluoridation is helping poorer communities who don’t have access to proper dental care. However, Dr. Staci Whitman of the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry, found that water fluoridation only prevents the equivalent of one quarter of one cavity over a whole lifetime- making fluoride’s “benefit” next to nothing. Fluoride Action Networks adds to this, mentioning that fluoride only works topically, while all of its associated risks stem from ingestion. The EPA recommends all tap water systems be fluoridated to .7mg/L and assures the public that fluoride in water is completely safe. However, a study published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology found that the lowest point at which a toxic effect of fluoride was observed is .179mg/L- a quarter of the amount recommended by the EPA. Giving babies formula made with tap water, as many mothers who cannot afford bottled water for formula are forced to do, can have detrimental effects because of the ratio of bodyweight to fluoride intake; effects like increased risks of autism, cancer, hypothyroidism, depression, bone deformities, fluorosis, diabetes, and lowered IQ in children have all been published on PubMed.
Now let’s focus on arguably the biggest danger presented by fluoride. In 2006, the NRC found a relationship between high fluoride intake and adverse neurological effects. An NTP assessment in 2016 investigating the issue further found that out of 55 studies, 52 of them found a 1-point drop in IQ of a child for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. Mothers today have around 4-5x that amount. This same NTP assessment could not detect any safe exposure to fluoride.
A similar study done by Green et al. found that a 1 mg higher daily dose of fluoride for pregnant women led to a 3.66 lower IQ score in children 3-4 years old. The researchers stated that their reported findings are on par with the effects of exposure to lead. After presenting these findings, Till and Green were approached and told “Congratulations – you have just sabotaged your career before it even started” (Till and Green). To make matters worse, articles like “Fluoride won’t make you dumber but the ‘debate’ about its safety might” published in 2019, still make headlines. New evidence that does not support the original message that community water fluoridation is safe has been shoved under the rug. Let me remind everyone of a similar situation- in spite of the facts, it took two decades before the CDC announced that there is no safe level of lead in children’s blood. Till and Green comment, “The critics—who were often paid by industry or simply ignorant about lead toxicity but still willing to offer their ‘expert’ opinion—delayed efforts to prevent lead poisoning by decades’” (Till and Green). Delaying the output of vital research about the downsides of water fluoridation will only hurt more people.
In 2016, a lawsuit against the EPA emerged. The judge forced the EPA to conduct a study of fluoride’s effects on the human body, seven years later- the study was still not complete. Or had it? Later, it was revealed that the EPA had sent the study to the American Dental Association to try and discredit the study because they didn’t like the results. After examining the study the judge ruled that the EPA needed to reassess the safe level standard because of fluoride’s alarming toxicity. Yet this ruling was over a year ago and the EPA has changed absolutely nothing. We have proven today that water fluoridation does not reduce cavities in poorer communities, but it does increase the risk of hypothyroidism, depression, bone deformities, lowers IQ, and so much more. I ask you, if you had kids, would you risk lowering their IQ and the many other health side effects for a chance of your child having a quarter of one less cavity throughout their lifetime? But don’t be silly, it’s not up to you because public health services have already made that choice for us. They’ve been making that choice for us for over 60 years.
Perhaps, we can reevaluate a norm originally built into our society for profit. In addition, we can educate the public on how to prevent tooth decay. Chewing sugar free gum, reducing intake of sweets, and proper oral hygiene practices are all effective ways to help prevent cavities. In fact, educating the public has proven to be beneficial on tooth decay- countries like Japan, Norway and Sweden who don’t fluoridate their water have increased education on tooth decay and seen a decrease in cavities. I’m not saying get rid of fluoride altogether, topical uses like fluoridated toothpaste, mouthwash, and dental treatment aren’t bad, but those should be everyone’s only intake of fluoride. Because today, after examining the effects water fluoridation has on humans and its political weight, we know that education works, however, silently poisoning people with fluoride on a national scale- is not the solution to tooth decay- children’s health should be no where near politics.”
CITATIONS
Teitelbaum, Marianne. “The Harmful Effects of Fluoride in Drinking Water.” Dr. Marianne Teitelbaum, 28 July 2022, drmteitelbaum.com/the-harmful-effects-of-fluoride-in-drinking-water.
“Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk.” American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/water-fluoridation-and-can cer-risk.html#:~:text=Water%20fluoridation%20began%20in%20some,fluoride %20levels%20had%20fewer%20cavities.
Fluoride Action Network. “Controversy: The Evolving Science of Fluoride: When New Evidence Doesn’t Conform With Existing Beliefs - Fluoride Action Network.” Fluoride Action Network, 15 July 2025, fluoridealert.org/studytracker/controversy-the-evolving-science-of-fluoride-wh en-new-evidence-doesnt-conform-with-existing-beliefs. Nagendra, Apoorva H., et al.
“Recent Advances in Cellular Effects of Fluoride: An Update on Its Signalling Pathway and Targeted Therapeutic Approaches.” Molecular Biology Reports, vol. 48, no. 7, July 2021, pp. 5661–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-021-06523-6.
Smith, H.V. and Smith, Margaret Cammack. “Mottled enamel in Arizona and its correlation with the concentrations of fluoride in water supplies.” University of Arizona, July 15 1932. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112019414660
“Fluoride &Amp; the Environment - Fluoride Action Network.” Fluoride Action Network, 23 May 2024, fluoridealert.org/key-topics/fluoride-and-the-environment.
Turner, C. H., et al. “Fluoride Treatment Increased Serum IGF-1, Bone Turnover, and Bone Mass, but Not Bone Strength, in Rabbits.” Calcified Tissue International, vol. 61, no. 1, July 1997, pp. 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002239900299.
Nakamoto, Tetsuo, and H. Ralph Rawls. “Fluoride Exposure in Early Life as the Possible Root Cause of Disease in Later Life.” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 42, no. 5, Jan. 2018, pp. 325–30. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4625-42.5.1.
Susheela, AK, et al. “EXCESS FLUORIDE INGESTION AND THYROID HORMONE DERANGEMENTS IN CHILDREN LIVING IN DELHI, INDIA.” Fluoride, vol. 38, no. 2, 2005, pp. 98–108. www.fluorideresearch.org/382/files/38298-108.pdf.
Krol, Casey. “Fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland”. Truth about Fluoride. October 2023. Fluoride's Effect On The Pineal Gland - Truth About Fluoride Huberman Lab Clips. “The Truth About Fluoride | Dr. Staci Whitman and Dr. Andrew Huberman.” YouTube, 25 Mar. 2025, www.youtube.com/watch?v=986rHqZHbew.
“National Toxicology Program (NTP) Report - Fluoride Action Network.” Fluoride Action Network, 23 May 2024, fluoridealert.org/key-topics/ntp-report.
“FDA/Fluoride Files - Fluoride Action Network.” Fluoride Action Network, 28 June 2016, fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818858?resultClic k=3
“FOOD and WATER WATCH, INC., Et Al., V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Et Al.” United States District Court Northern District of California, by United States District Court Northern District of California, 2024, pp. 1–80. www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/17-cv-2162-Food-_-Wate r-Watch-Inc.-et-al.-v.-EPA-et-al-Opinion.pdf.
Olvey, Ainsley. “Reexamining an Unquestioned Staple: Fluoride.” Voice the Vitals, 18 June 2025, www.voicethevitals.org/blog/reexamining-an-unquestioned-staple-fluoride.
