Public Water Fluoridation is
Unethical, Unsafe, and Unnecessary

Because...

• It is intentionally a forced mass medication, violating an individual's right to consent, and disregarding individual-appropriate dosage.  

That sentence alone is reason enough to stand in opposition to fluoridation.  It is not the role of government to force innocent people to ingest a medication against their will.  No one should do that.  Fluoride is not a benign substance, it is not a nutrient, and it is not used to treat water quality.  It is a prophylactic drug, not the same as naturally occurring fluoride, artificially added with the sole intention of treating tooth decay in children, indiscriminately applied to everyone in the community.  If a citizen forced a politician to take a drug against their will, they'd be in jail.  Because, it is inherently a violation of a person’s body, and it is obviously wrong to act as if one owns the body of another person, much less the entire population.  If there is anything a person can rightly own, it is themselves.  The sanctity of one’s own body is why rape is wrong.  Self ownership and free will are something sacred to each conscious living being.  This should be apparent if you take the time to truly reflect on it, and it is why fluoridation contravenes multiple major codes of ethics and law.  The very first sentence in the Nuremberg Code is: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”  In UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights it is explicitly stated: “In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”  This is so fundamental, that it constitutes universal human rights, written in international law.  A person must decide for themselves whether or not to ingest a medication.  To circumvent that, is a moral crime.  Fluoride added to public water cannot be avoided, as it cannot feasibly be filtered out and it goes anywhere the water flows.  If there is anything a person is entitled to, it is elemental sustenance.  Water is a vital necessity of life, and it needs to be available free from drugs.  Why don't we do this with any number of other medications?  With vitamin D, or antidepressants?  Because it is not an appropriate way to treat disease, you cannot control individual dosage to avoid harm, there is no informed consent, and there is no way to opt out.  It is simply wrong for the government to force a mass medication on the public.  

• It is now known to cause harm to vulnerable groups of people who are more at risk of fluoride's toxic effects.  

This includes infants, the elderly, minority communities, people with certain nutrient deficiencies, and those with kidney disease, thyroid conditions, diabetes, or fluoride allergies.  Substantial evidence and clear reasoning show a wide range of negative health effects associated with this.  If you doubt that, then actually look at the references provided, look to the evidence, and listen to the thousands of qualified professionals warning you about serious risk of harm.  There are thousands of studies including new high quality studies, even used in federal litigation against government agencies.  Fluoridation definitely exposes people to health risks.  Even the ADA and CDC, who are otherwise the primary promoters of fluoridation, have joined others in warning mothers not to give their babies fluoridated water.  How many moms do you think might not hear that warning?  With all those vulnerable groups from babies to people with a compromised thyroid or kidney, you can be certain that someone out there will be hurt by fluoridation.  The first priority of good governance is to protect the innocent from harm; not to throw them in harm's way.  As with the wrongfulness of forced mass medication, this point alone can stand to conclude that fluoridation is wrong, because knowingly hurting innocent people is wrong.  The contentious notion that children's teeth may improve from ingesting fluoride does not justify knowingly harming innocent people against their will.  There are much better ways to address the problem of children's tooth decay. 

• It is now thought to cause chronic harm to the general population by accumulating over years of exposure.  

There is surely enough scientific data to treat this concern with respect.  For instance, the National Academy of Sciences has published a 450 page report highlighting numerous studies linking fluoride in drinking water, even at very low levels, to a range of human health problems, from thyroid disorders or decreased IQ to potential cancer risks.  Studies have shown toxicity on par with lead and arsenic.  There is good reason to believe that fluoridation causes a lot of people a world of harm.  How many people and to what extent are in the details.  Don’t forget the certainty of exposing vulnerable groups to harm, and where in doubt with the rest, The Precautionary Principle rightly applies:  “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”  

• Dosage is uncontrollable, amounts are not insignificantly small, and people are overexposed.  

Dosage cannot be reliably controlled, as the margin of safety is either very low or non-existent, and each person ends up with highly variable exposure, through personal level of water intake, fluoride-containing foods, medications, oral care products, and other sources of fluoride, as well as having very different individual biochemistry and susceptibility.  Many people have levels of exposure well beyond what pro-fluoridationists argue to be beneficial.  For others, many studies have found adverse effects linked to fluoridation at low levels, even with cases many times lower than standard fluoridation amounts.  For instance, as fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, thyroid effects are observed at levels as low as .01-.06 ppm, which is dramatically less than the .7 ppm now advocated by fluoride supporters, or the 1 ppm used for decades, or the 4 ppm allowed by government regulation.  Similarly, a study from Nov 2020 found “concentrations in drinking water” “induces DNA damage and oxidative stress in bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells”.  Human evolution has culminated in a mother's body being setup to keep such levels of fluoride away from our children, with a mere .004 ppm fluoride found in breast milk.  Indiscriminately applying these large doses to the entire population, and with no way of controlling significant variance, isn't just wrong, it's bad medicine, against all modern principles of pharmacology.

• Fluorosilicic acid is not an approved drug by the FDA and has not undergone safety testing.  

This constitutes unlawful medical research, violating multiple codes of medical ethics.  It is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, and more importantly it is not the insoluble calcium fluoride found in nature.  Artificial fluoridation is not merely an imitation of natural water conditions, as many pro-fluoridationists convey.  While fluorine is the 13th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, the vast majority of fresh surface water and plants contain very little fluoride, and where fluoride is present it is certainly not what is used in artificial fluoridation.  The type of fluoride used is an industrial toxic waste chemical scrubbed from smoke stack emissions in aluminum production and phosphate fertilizer manufacturing, significantly contaminated with lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and other metals known to adversely affect human health.  The origin of fluoridation is a story of industry driven policy, sharing history with DDT, asbestos, and lead added to gasoline.  For that, I recommend the book The Fluoride Deception, or the video interview with its author. 

• The drug's effectiveness is controversial and the delivery method unsubstantiated.  

Given that fluoridation harms some people, its effectiveness in achieving benefits for others should be so secondary that it's irrelevant.  It's not right to physically harm groups such as infants, or those allergic, or of compromised health, etc., just so that a particular age range of some children might have a desired dental effect.  That should end it there, however, it's worth noting that the efficacy of fluoridation in achieving its goals has certainly been challenged.  Fluoride advocates often state that there are thousands of studies that prove fluoridation to be both “safe and effective”.  However, they ignore that it is clearly not safe for the vulnerable groups, and in comprehensive systematic review of the studies it is found that claims of efficacy are not soundly supported by science.  The Cochrane Collaboration, internationally recognized as the gold standard in scientific review, determined that the majority of studies are low quality, outdated, and with over 97% “at a high risk of bias”.  In the Journal of Risk Research, this political distortion of fluoridation science is explored as “uncertainty bias”, in which uncertain data is framed in biased terms.  Similarly, the UK government commissioned York Review found there has not yet been a single high-quality study demonstrating fluoridation’s benefits.  Not one randomized controlled trial, which is the gold standard for medical treatments that most drugs must meet before they are allowed to enter the market.  Meanwhile, comprehensive data compiled by the World Health Organization shows there is no discernible difference between the few western countries that fluoridate their water and the majority that do not.  The largest fluoridation study in the US shows very little difference as well.  As do other peer reviewed journals and many other studies.  Furthermore, with whatever benefit to decay there could be, even fluoride's promoters, such as those at the CDC, agree that the primary effects are topical rather than systemic.  This means that there is no need to drink fluoride to achieve the intended outcome, as it's meant to be applied directly to the surface of teeth, rather than being swallowed where it comes into contact with every organ in the body.  Who thinks it's a good idea to drink your suntan lotion?  If you want it, then apply it topically, to a willing individual.  

• A significant number of people and prominent authorities oppose fluoridation.  

It has been rejected by 97% of western Europe, and hundreds of communities throughout the U.S.  If you listen to their explanations why, there are many reasons, but often of concern for health safety and human rights.  The EPA Headquarters Union, representing over a thousand scientists, has gone on record in opposition to fluoridation.  Thousands of medical, scientific, and environmental health professionals have signed national petitions to the U.S. government.  Thousands of members of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment have collectively stated their opposition to fluoridation.  Over a dozen Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry and Medicine oppose fluoridation.  A prestigious panel of highly qualified experts at the US National Academy of Sciences National Research Council completed one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the scientific literature in 60 years, and they unanimously found that the allowable level of fluoride is too high, exposing children to risk of severe dental fluorosis and all groups to risk of bone fracture.  There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the U.S. than the rest of the world combined.  It's time for us to join the other 95% of the world's population and stop drinking artificially fluoridated water. 

• There are reasonable alternatives.  

Studies confirm that tooth decay rates should not be expected to rise as a result of discontinued fluoridation.  To end fluoridation immediately is the right thing to do overall.  But with concern for dental treatment, the money spent on fluoridation, with all the associated costs, may very well be spent on programs to provide more direct and individualized solutions to tooth decay.  If fluoride is thought to be an appropriate solution, then the government could provide it as topically applied, FDA approved pharmaceutical sodium fluoride, or calcium fluoride, given directly to those who can't afford to easily buy it for themselves and who want it as a voluntary medication.  Even systemically ingested fluoride supplements could be drank or eaten by individuals not bothered by the risks.  Those who wish to fluoridate their own bodies can do so.  Clearly that’s a step up from untested industrial fluorosilicate, contaminated with heavy metals, pushed down the throats of an unwilling and vulnerable populace.  If community dental health were a priority, there are many approaches that could be considered.  Providing subsidized trips to the dentist for those in poverty is one option.  Or to address the cause of tooth decay more directly, an initiative could be made for programs, such as in schools, to teach and facilitate the real solutions of oral hygiene, personal responsibility, eating right, avoiding sugar, etc., as these are far more the source of tooth decay than a lack of fluoride.  There are many ways to combat tooth decay and you must admit that fluoridation is a rather problematic one.  Focus on solutions that work without contravening ethics and serious safety concerns. 

• Water is a vital necessity of life and should be maintained free of any unnecessary and controversial additives.  

The Safe Drinking Water Act states that no substance shall be added to water other than to make it potable.  In a natural world, we would have access to unadulterated water, but modern society has polluted the environment and the government provides only artificially medicated water in its place.  This compels individuals to purchase purified water, but it is not feasible for anyone to truly avoid exposure to fluoridated water, as it cannot be entirely filtered out, it is heavily absorbed when showering, saturated into food and beverage products, and is spread everywhere water goes into the environment.  To use this basic, essential form of sustenance as a pervasive, unavoidable vehicle for drugs is simply wrong.