This is a long list of points, that should have "citation needed" attached to them. Whoever it is, presents some "facts" without any actual source, analysis or other way to easily verify.
Also, sentence like "The level of fluoride put into drinking water at 1 ppm is not what nature intended." should not be used by serious people. Body radiation is also "not what nature intended" - yet, it can stop diseases.
The WHO technical report on fluoridation (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_846.pdf) makes specific mention adding fluoride to drinking water (see page 16), finding it to be a safe and cost effective means of significantly improving dental health.
Although the WHO report also notes several preconditions, and contraindications, that should be considered prior to drinking water fluoridation, including a few that seem to be obliquely mentioned in the article link, the focus is on maximizing the benefit for the greatest amount of people. Arguably, that's the point of forming a society in the first place.
The stated reason for reducing current fluoridation levels has more to do with an increase in its availability from other sources. But this article is useless in furthering any meaningful discussion so far as it provides little more than unsubstantiated opinion.
It would be great to have a meaningful discussion on how we can balance the benefits to society and individual risks, including exactly where the statistical benefits afforded to a group outweigh the potential risks to individuals. But this article isn't it.
The broader issue touches on exactly how to frame the social contract between a government and its people - what rights are you prepared to give up, what responsibilities will you shoulder, and what risks are you prepared to accept, in order to benefit from the organization and protections afforded by your society?
Water fluoridation has never been proved to work at anything like the rates people have been lead to believe.
It is true that caries levels have decreased dramatically since fluoridation, but they have at the same rate in other countries without fluoridation; due to the availability of fluoride toothpaste.
The studies that originally showed the 'safety' of fluoride in NY in the 40s were a joke. Paid for by the Carnegie institute, a conclusion already determined, carried out by dentists who both a) knew which kids were receiving fluoride or not and b) checked for 'safety' by seeing whether or not teeth got moddeled.
The US Government via the EPA has recently recommended reducing fluoride concentration in the water supply citing the fact that the standards were last set in the 1960's and have not been reviewed since. So it seems like many other additives we are learning more and more about potentially adverse effects of excessive fluoride exposure.
In general, if someone wants to feed me a low dose poison, I'd want to see some bullet-proof safety and efficacy data.
In this case, if the cavity rates between cities with and without fluoride are similar as the article states, I would pass.
The US just lowered the recommended fluoride level. My own view is that this is a good thing, but I think everyone should do some research for themselves and not just accept that the government always makes the right choice.
There are many serious scientists who question the fluoride risk/reward equation.
"31. Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are forced to drink fluoridated water. If fluoride is indeed beneficial, people can always take it as a dietary supplement."
Dietary supplement? The alleged benefit of flouride is to prevent tooth decay, how does taking it as a dietary supplement prevent tooth decay?
As a foreigner, I've always wondered why in the US, there were so many opponents of adding fluoride to drinking water, but I never heard anyone oppose adding chlorine, which not only is an arguably harmful substance, but also makes the water taste horribly.
"Now why don't you just take it easy, Group Captain, and please make me a drink of grain alcohol and rainwater, and help yourself to whatever you'd like."
"Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."
I was a leading part of an unsuccessful campaign to get fluoride out of the water in a city in Vermont.
I went from having no idea about the issue to 'convinced' it shouldn't be in the water in an afternoon when I ran into someone (in my same city years before we tried to get it out again) petitioning on the street.
The super common sense easy argument is choice. If you are dripping fluoride into the drinking water, you are effectively medicating a population without their consent. I am not so poor as to not be able to buy filtered water and/or a reverse osmosis filtration system, but many families are.
Even if I am able, and choose, not to drink the city's water: the local bread I buy, I pasta I cook, virtually everything these days that uses water in its creation process also has fluoride. That is why they are reducing it.. when the .7-1.2 ppm standard was made.. it was based off the total daily dose assuming fluoride would only come from water. It took 60 years to realize total dose is beyond just the tap water drink; the anti-fluoridationists have been saying this from the beginning.
There are a bunch of studies linking IQ drops to fluoride exposure. Way before fluoride was a tooth decay miracle, it was an industrial hazard that had Aluminum plants being sued all over the place. Fluoride played a key role in developing the nuclear bomb. In two different ways, it is a fluoride-uranium gas that is run through huge ducts for many miles to slowly enrich uranium; it was fluorocarbons that were able to lubricate the machines that this gas went through (everything else would get eaten by the fluorine).
The negative health effects are not hard to find. The only reason this is still a practice is because some powerful organizations reputations are at risk; and if instead of dripping what is literally the scrubber fluid from super-phosphate fertilizer plants into your water slowly, they would have to pay for hazardous waste disposal.
I could go on and on. If you want a really good read, check out the Fluoride Deception.
The history is amazing.
Fluorosis is the moddling of the teeth by fluoride. Fluoride 'works' by changing the mineral structure of your teeth. The fluoro-apatite is more resistant to decay than hydroxy-apatite. This is why fluoride toothpaste and fluoride gels make perfect sense. They work.
When you ingest fluoride over long periods of time, the fluoride accumulates not just in your teeth, but in all of the places that have a similar chemical composition to your teeth, namely your bones. If someone's teeth are moddeled you can be sure their bones are too.
Indeed, the highest concentrations of fluoride found in humans is not in the bones or the teeth at all, but the bits of calcium in the pineal gland; where it has been measured in the 10,000ppm range (this is due probably to a really high blood flow and large relative surface area).
Fluoride is super dirt cheap because it is literally an industrial waste. I don't want to have to drink it. They fight tooth and nail and call it conspiracy theorist when we suggest it is an outdated practice.
We should also ban dihydrogen oxide, because it is used in toxic industrial activities. It's corrosive like crazy. Hell, it's the primary ingredient in acids. Excessive consumption is known to cause schizophrenia, seizures and death. The list goes on and on...
Also, sentence like "The level of fluoride put into drinking water at 1 ppm is not what nature intended." should not be used by serious people. Body radiation is also "not what nature intended" - yet, it can stop diseases.