Pro-fluoride advocates claim there are no facts supporting not fluoridating. Here are quotes from judges when the populace has taken the inevitable next step after having a toxic substance forced upon them and sued. Remember that a judge presiding over litigation reviews facts.
Sound off on the important issues at
Judge Farris, presiding over a case involving fluoridation of Houston's water, said:
"That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man."
Chief Justice John Flaherty, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, presided over litigation involving fluoridation and said:
"The evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body."
Illinois Judge Ronald Niemann said:
"This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature's determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health."
Now contrast this with the ambiguous statements that have been made favoring fluoridation. We are told that science has proven repeatedly that fluoride is safe. When? They don't cite a single study. I have reviewed hundreds of studies and haven't found one.
However, there are thousands of studies out there that have been peer-reviewed and published in respected journals that at least cast doubt as to the effectiveness of fluoride. The mayor's fluoride commission reviewed tons of studies and decided it wasn't safe. In short: If in doubt, keep it out.