Is fluoride dangerous ?

Water fluoridation is the addition of the chemical fluoride to public water supplies, for the purpose of reducing cavities.

About two-thirds of the U.S. population has fluoridated public water, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Of those served by community water systems, the percentage climbs to 74.6 percent.

What is fluoridation ?

Fluoride is an ionic compound derived from fluorine, which is the single most reactive element; it is naturally found in many rocks. About 95 percent of the fluoride added to public water supplies is produced from phosphorite rock, according to the CDC.



Fluoride is added to public water supplies at an average concentration of about 1 part per million (1 ppm) or 1 milligram per liter, or slightly below. Naturally occurring fluoride concentrations in surface waters depend on location but are generally low and usually do not exceed 0.3 ppm. Groundwater can contain much higher levels, however. 

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a recommendation for the optimal fluoride level that should be in drinking water to prevent tooth decay. This new recommendation is for a single level of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, opposed to the 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter recommendation issued in 1962, which is now the standard.  

The change was recommended because most people in the United States have access to more sources of fluoride than they did when the guidelines were first put in place. "The adjustment in amount is more representative of the current needs of the population. Due to the increased use and accessibility of other fluoride sources (toothpaste, mouth rinse, etc.) and other improvements in oral health care, these new recommendations have been made," said Alice Lee, a pediatric dentist at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York.

How fluoridation works

Fluoride works by binding to tooth enamel, which is primarily made up of hydroxylapatite, a crystal composed of calcium, phosphorus, hydrogen and oxygen, according to Scientific American. By replacing the hydroxyl molecule on hydroxylapatite, fluoride makes the tooth more resistant to acid attack from bacteria. Exactly how fluoride helps protect teeth, and how much it protects them, however, isn't completely clear. Within the last 15 years, however, research has revealed that fluoride primarily works topically, such as when it applied to the teeth in fluoride-rich toothpaste.

Tooth decay, when left untreated, can lead to serious health problems, such as infections that can spread into the jaw. Tooth decay has declined in the United States since fluoridation began, according to the CDC. However, it has also declined in other countries that do not fluoridate, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Fluoridation controversy

Since its introduction beginning in the 1940s, fluoridation has been the source of considerable controversy. Pro-fluoridation supporters say that the process is "safe and effective" for reducing cavities, particularly in poor children. Water fluoridation is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association and the CDC, which lists it as one of the top 10 most important public health measures of the 20th century.

Those on the opposite side say that it is unethical form of mass-medication, without each individual's consent or knowledge. By putting fluoride in drinking water, the dosage cannot be controlled, since some people — like laborers and people with kidney problems — drink much more water than others. People opposed to fluoridation also argue that since fluoride-rich toothpaste is available, fluoride needn't be added to water. The first fluoridated toothpaste, Crest, was introduced in 1955.

Fluoride opponents, such as the Fluoride Action Network, cite studies showing that high levels of fluoride have been linked to a number of negative health effects like bone fractures, thyroid disorders and impaired brain development and function.  

One study published in the fall of 2012 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found a link between high fluoride levels found naturally in drinking water in China and elsewhere in the world, and lower IQs in children. The paper looked at the results of 27 different studies, 26 of which found a link between high-fluoride drinking water and lower IQ. The average IQ difference between high and low fluoride areas was 7 points, the study found.

The most obvious health effect of excess fluoride exposure is dental fluorosis, which when mild includes white streaks, and when severe can include brown stains, pits and broken enamel. As of 2010, 41 percent of kids ages 12 to 15 had some form of dental fluorosis, according to the CDC.

"The new recommendations will maintain the caries prevention benefits of fluoride … and will simultaneously reduce the risk of dental fluorosis in younger patients," Edward H. Moody, Jr., a dentist and president of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD), told Live Science.

2009 study that tracked fluoride exposure in more than 600 children in Iowa found no significant link between fluoride exposure and tooth decay. Another 2007 review in the British Medical Journal stated that "there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation," which is currently standard for all drugs.  

Is fluoride bad for you ?

It depends who you ask; fluoride is unquestionably toxic at certain concentrations. The most comprehensive report on fluoride was published in 2006 by the National Research Council, done at the behest of the Environmental Protection Agency. That group found that the upper limit for fluoride, at 4 ppm, was too high to prevent a certain percentage of kids from developing severe dental fluorosis and recommended the EPA lower this limit.

The CDC says that the level at which it is added to the water (1 ppm) is safe and effective. Kerry Maguire, of the Forsyth Institute, an independent (not-for-profit) research institute in the United States specializing on oral health and its connection to overall wellness, agrees with the CDC. 

"For the children I treat, fluoridated drinking water translates into fewer cavities requiring a trip to the dentist and more time in school," she said. "As a dentist and scientist – as well as a mother and grandmother – I welcome the CDC’s affirmation of the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation.”

Water is fluoridated in 29 of the 30 largest cities. The exception is Portland, Ore. For the fourth time since 1956, voters in Portland defeated a plan in 2012 to add fluoride to the public water supply. For weeks, residents had been contentiously debating fluoridation.

Additional reporting by Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor.

Correction: This article was updated on June 29, 2015, to include the correct percentage of the U.S. population that has access to fluoridated water.

Additional resources



Water fluoridation controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The water fluoridation controversy arises from political, moral, ethical,[1] economic, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. Those opposed argue that water fluoridation may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled.[2][3][4] In some other countries, sodium fluoride is added to table salt.[5]

At the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only known adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development.[6] Dental fluorosis is cosmetic and unlikely to represent any other effect on public health.[7] Some countries choose water fluoridation as a method to reduce cavities in both children and adults.[6]

Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s.[8] During the 1950s and 1960s, conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine American public health.[9] In recent years water fluoridation has become a pervasive health and political issue in many countries, resulting in changes to public policy regarding water fluoridation.

Fluoridated water systems are used by two-thirds of the U.S. population. Outside of the U.S, fluoridated systems are used by less than 3% of the world's population.[10]



Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal publication as a violation of the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.[1] A dentistry professor and a philosopher argued in a dentistry journal that the moral status for advocating water fluoridation is "at best indeterminate" and could even be considered immoral. They asserted that it infringes upon autonomy based on uncertain evidence, with possible negative effects.[11] Another journal article suggested applying the precautionary principle to this controversy, which calls for public policy to reflect a conservative approach to minimize risk in the setting where harm is possible (but not necessarily confirmed) and where the science is not settled.[12]

In the United Kingdom, the Green Party, who opposed water fluoridation in 2003, considered it to be a form of mass medication.[13] By 2015 they modified this stance, but still opposed mass fluoridation on the grounds that "there is conflicting evidence on the benefits to dental health of this practice and major concerns on the cumulative negative wider health effects of total ingestion levels of fluoride" and that "there are further concerns on the links with the chemical industry that supplies artificial fluoride and the compulsory nature of its addition to drinking water that denies consumers choice".[14]

In her book 50 Health Scares That Fizzled, Joan Callahan writes that, "For lower-income people with no insurance, fluoridated water (like enriched flour and fortified milk) looks more like a free preventative health measure that a few elitists are trying to take away."[15]


Calcium fluoride can occur naturally in water in concentrations well above recommended levels, which can have several long-term adverse effects, including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones.[16] In 1984 the World Health Organization recommended a guideline maximum fluoride value of 1.5 mg/L as a level at which fluorosis should be minimal, reaffirming it in 2006.[17]

Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture (broken bones); it may result in slightly lower fracture risk than either excessively high levels of fluoridation or no fluoridation.[7] There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma.[7][18]

In rare cases improper implementation of water fluoridation can result in overfluoridation that causes outbreaks of acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nauseavomiting, and diarrhea. Three such outbreaks were reported in the U.S. between 1991 and 1998, caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L; in the 1992 Alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died.[19] In 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in Asheboro, North Carolina in 90 minutes—an amount that was intended to be released in a 24-hour period.[20]

Like other common water additives such as chlorine, hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride decrease pH and cause a small increase of corrosivity, but this problem is easily addressed by increasing the pH.[21] Although it has been hypothesized that hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride might increase human lead uptake from water, a 2006 statistical analysis did not support concerns that these chemicals cause higher blood lead concentrations in children.[22] Trace levels of arsenic and lead may be present in fluoride compounds added to water; however, concentrations are below measurement limits.[21]

The effect of water fluoridation on the natural environment has been investigated, and no adverse effects have been established. Issues studied have included fluoride concentrations in groundwater and downstream rivers; lawns, gardens, and plants; consumption of plants grown in fluoridated water; air emissions; and equipment noise.[21]


Water fluoridation is effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.[6] Studies have shown that water fluoridation has led to reductions of 50–60% in childhood cavities; while more recent studies show lower reductions (18–40%), likely due to increasing use of fluoride from other sources, notably toothpaste, and also to the halo effect of food and drink made in fluoridated areas and consumed in unfluoridated ones.[23]

A 2000 systematic review found that water fluoridation was statistically associated with a decreased proportion of children with cavities (the median of mean decreases was 14.6%, the range −5 to 64%), and with a decrease in decayed, missing, and filled primary teeth (the median of mean decreases was 2.25 teeth, the range 0.5–4.4 teeth),[18] which is roughly equivalent to preventing 40% of cavities.[24] The review found that the evidence was of moderate quality: many studies did not attempt to reduce observer bias, control for confounding factors, report variance measures, or use appropriate analysis. Although no major differences between natural and artificial fluoridation were apparent, the evidence was inadequate to reach a conclusion about any differences.[18]

Fluoride is also used to prevent cavities in adults. However, there are fewer studies in adults, and the design of water fluoridation studies in adults is inferior to that of studies of self- or clinically applied fluoride. A 2007 meta-analysis found that water fluoridation prevented an estimated 27% of cavities in adults (95% confidence interval [CI] 19–34%), about the same fraction as prevented by exposure to any delivery method of fluoride (29% average, 95% CI: 16–42%).[25] A 2002 systematic review found strong evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing overall tooth decay in communities.[26]

Most countries in Europe have experienced substantial declines in cavities without the use of water fluoridation.[27] For example, in Finland and Germany, tooth decay rates remained stable or continued to decline after water fluoridation stopped. Fluoridation may be useful in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride.[28] The effectiveness of water fluoridation can vary according to circumstances such as whether preventive dental care is free to all children.[29]

Some studies suggest that fluoridation reduces oral health inequalities between the rich and poor, but the evidence is limited.[27] There is anecdotal but not scientific evidence that fluoride allows more time for dental treatment by slowing the progression of tooth decay, or that it simplifies treatment by causing most cavities to occur in pits and fissures of teeth.[30]

Medical consensus

The fluoridation of public water has been hailed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control as one of the top medical achievements of the 20th century.[31] It is ranked No. 9 on this list ahead of "Recognition of tobacco use as a health hazard."[32]

The American Dental Association calls water fluoridation "one of the safest and most beneficial, cost-effective public health measures for preventing, controlling, and in some cases reversing, tooth decay."[33]

Health Canada supports fluoridation, citing a number of international scientific reviews that indicate "there is no link between any adverse health effects and exposure to fluoride in drinking water at levels that are below the maximum acceptable concentration of 1.5 mg/L."[34]

The World Health Organization says fluoridation is an effective way to prevent tooth decay in poor communities. "In some developed countries, the health and economic benefits of fluoridation may be small, but particularly important in deprived areas, where water fluoridation may be a key factor in reducing inequalities in dental health."[35]

Use throughout the world

Water fluoridation is used in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and Australia, and a handful of other countries. The following nations previously fluoridated their water, but stopped the practice, with the years when water fluoridation started and stopped in parentheses:

  • Federal Republic of Germany (1952–1971)
  • Sweden (1952–1971)
  • Netherlands (1953–1976)
  • Czechoslovakia (1955–1990)
  • German Democratic Republic (1959–1990)
  • Soviet Union (1960–1990)
  • Finland (1959–1993)
  • Japan (1952–1972)[36]
  • Israel (1981–2014) *Mandatory by law since 2002.[37][38]

In the United Kingdom a strategic health authority can direct a water company to fluoridate the water supply in an area if it is technically possible. The strategic health authority must consult with the local community and businesses in the affected area. The water company will act as a contractor in any new schemes and cannot refuse to fluoridate the supply.[39]

In areas with complex water sources, water fluoridation is more difficult and more costly. Alternative fluoridation methods have been proposed, and implemented in some parts of the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently assessing the effects of fluoridated toothpaste, milk fluoridation and salt fluoridation in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The WHO supports fluoridation of water in some areas.[40]


The first large fluoridation controversy occurred in Wisconsin in 1950. Fluoridation opponents questioned the ethics, safety, and efficacy of fluoridation.[41] New Zealand was the second country to fluoridate, and similar controversies arose there.[42] Fears about fluoride were likely exacerbated by the reputation of fluoride compounds as insect poisons and by early literature which tended to use terms such as "toxic" and "low grade chronic fluoride poisoning" to describe mottling from consumption of 6 mg/L of fluoride prior to tooth eruption, a level of consumption not expected to occur under controlled fluoridation.[43] When voted upon, the outcomes tend to be negative, and thus fluoridation has had a history of gaining through administrative orders in North America.[41]

Outside North America, water fluoridation was adopted in some European countries, but in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Denmark and Sweden banned fluoridation when government panels found insufficient evidence of safety, and the Netherlands banned water fluoridation when "a group of medical practitioners presented evidence" that it caused negative effects in a percentage of the population.

Communist conspiracy theory (1940s–1960s)

Flier issued in May 1955 by the Keep America Committee, alleging a conspiracy theorythat water fluoridation is a communist plot.

Water fluoridation has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories. During the "Red Scare" in the United States during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, activists on the far right of American politics routinely asserted that fluoridation was part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime. These opponents believed it was "another aspect of President Truman's drive to socialize medicine."[44] They also opposed other public health programs, notably mass vaccination and mental health services.[45] Their views were influenced by opposition to a number of major social and political changes that had happened in recent years: the growth of internationalism, particularly the UN and its programs; the introduction of social welfare provisions, particularly the various programs established by the New Deal; and government efforts to reduce perceived inequalities in the social structure of the United States.[46]

Others asserted the existence of "a Communist plot to deplete the brainpower and sap the strength of a generation of American children".[44] Dr. Charles Bett, a prominent anti-fluoridationist, charged that fluoridation was "better than using the atom bomb because the atom bomb has to be made, has to be transported to the place it is to be set off while poisonous fluorine has been placed right beside the water supplies by the Americans themselves ready to be dumped into the water mains whenever a Communist desires!" Similarly, a right-wing newsletter, the American Capsule News, claimed that "the Soviet General Staff is very happy about it. Anytime they get ready to strike, and their 5th column takes over, there are tons and tons of this poison "standing by" municipal and military water systems ready to be poured in within 15 minutes."[9]

This controversy had a direct impact on local program during the 1950s and 1960s, where referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities. It was not until as late as the 1990s that fluoridated water was consumed by the majority of the population of the United States.[45]

The communist conspiracy argument declined in influence by the mid-1960s, becoming associated in the public mind with irrational fear and paranoia. It was portrayed in Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, in which the character General Jack D. Ripper initiates a nuclear war in the hope of thwarting a communist plot to "sap and impurify" the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people with fluoridated water. Another satire appeared in the 1967 movie In Like Flint, in which a character's fear of fluoridation is used to indicate that he is insane.

Some anti-fluoridationists claimed that the conspiracy theories were damaging their goals; Dr. Frederick Exner, an anti-fluoridation campaigner in the early 1960s, told a conference: "most people are not prepared to believe that fluoridation is a communist plot, and if you say it is, you are successfully ridiculed by the promoters. It is being done, effectively, every day ... some of the people on our side are the fluoridators' 'fifth column'."[9]

Later conspiracy theories

In 1987, Ian E. Stephens authored a self-published booklet, an extract of which was published in the Australian New Age publication Nexus Magazine in 1995. In it he claimed he was told by "Charles Elliot Perkins" that: "Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him ... Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile." These statements have been dismissed by reputable Holocaust historians as untrue, but they are regularly repeated to the present day in conspiracy publications and websites.[47]

In 2004, on the U.S. television program Democracy Now, investigative journalist and author of the book The Fluoride DeceptionChristopher Bryson claimed that, "the post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride—including the government's nuclear weapons program."[48]

Court cases


Water was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, at which point the Supreme Court of the Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized.[49] The Dutch Court decided that authorities had no legal basis for adding chemicals to drinking water if they did not also improve safety. It was also stated as support that consumers cannot choose a different tap water provider.[50] Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973.

In Ryan v. Attorney General (1965), the Supreme Court of Ireland held that water fluoridation did not infringe the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity.[51] The court found that such a right to bodily integrity did exist, despite the fact that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of Ireland, thus establishing the doctrine of unenumerated rights in Irish constitutional law.

United States

Fluoridation has been the subject of many court cases wherein activists have sued municipalities, asserting that their rights to consent to medical treatment and due process are infringed by mandatory water fluoridation.[1] Individuals have sued municipalities for a number of illnesses that they believe were caused by fluoridation of the city's water supply. In most of these cases, the courts have held in favor of cities, finding no or only a tenuous connection between health problems and widespread water fluoridation.[52] To date, no federal appellate court or state court of last resort (i.e., state supreme court) has found water fluoridation to be unlawful.[53]

See also


  1. Jump up to: a b c Cross DW, Carton RJ (2003). "Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights". Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 9 (1): 24–9. doi:10.1179/107735203800328830PMID 12749628.
  2. Jump up ^ American Public Health Association Community Water Fluoridation in the United States 10-28-'08
  3. Jump up ^ Recommendations for using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, Centers for Disease Control 8-17-'01
  4. Jump up ^ Autio-Gold, Jaana; Courts, Frank, Assessing the effect of fluoride varnish on early enamel carious lesions in the primary dentition, J. Amer. Dent. Assn.
  5. Jump up ^ "Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water" (PDF)., citing Götzfried, Franz (2006). "Production of fluoridated salt". Schweizer Monatsschrift fur Zahnmedizin 116 (4): 367–370. PMID 16708522.
  6. Jump up to: a b c Parnell C, Whelton H, O'Mullane D. Water fluoridation. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009;10(3):141–8. doi:10.1007/bf03262675PMID 19772843.
  7. Jump up to: a b c National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation [PDF]. 2007 [Retrieved 2009-10-13]. ISBN 1-86496-415-4.Summary: Yeung CA. A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation. Evid Based Dent. 2008;9(2):39–43. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400578PMID 18584000Lay summaryNHMRC, 2007.
  8. Jump up ^ Martin B. (1989) The sociology of the fluoridation controversy: a reexaminationSociological Quarterly.
  9. Jump up to: a b c Johnston, Robert D (2004). The Politics of Healing. Routledge. p. 136. ISBN 0-415-93339-0.
  10. Jump up ^ The British Fluoridation Society; The UK Public Health Association; The British Dental Association; The Faculty of Public Health (2012). "The extent of water fluoridation". One in a Million: The facts about water fluoridation (3rd ed.). Manchester: British Fluoridation Society. pp. 55–80. ISBN 0-9547684-0-X.
  11. Jump up ^ Cohen H, Locker D (2001). "The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation"J. Can. Dent. Assoc 67 (10): 578–80.
  12. Jump up ^ Tickner J, Coffin M (March 2006). "What does the precautionary principle mean for evidence-based dentistry?". J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 6 (1): 6–15. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2005.12.006PMID 17138389.
  13. Jump up ^ UK Green Party. (2003). Water fluoridation contravenes UK law, EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Press office briefing. accessdate 2008-08-03
  14. Jump up ^ "Health"Record of Policy Statements (Green Party), 2014, retrieved 2014-11-22
  15. Jump up ^ "50 Health Scares That Fizzled" by Joan R. Callahan, 2011, published by ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38538-4.
  16. Jump up ^ Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton J, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y. Fluoride in Drinking-water [PDF]. World Health Organization; 2006. ISBN 92-4-156319-2. Human health effects. p. 29–36.
  17. Jump up ^ Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton J, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y. Fluoride in Drinking-water [PDF]. World Health Organization; 2006. ISBN 92-4-156319-2. Guidelines and standards. p. 37–9.
  18. Jump up to: a b c McDonagh M, Whiting P, Bradley M et al. A systematic review of public water fluoridation [PDF]; 2000. Report website: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Fluoridation of drinking water: a systematic review of its efficacy and safety; 2000 [Retrieved 2009-05-26]. Authors' summary: McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM et al..  Systematic review of water fluoridation [PDF]. BMJ. 2000;321(7265):855–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7265.855PMID 11021861PMC 27492. Authors' commentary: Treasure ET, Chestnutt IG, Whiting P, McDonagh M, Wilson P, Kleijnen J.  The York review—a systematic review of public water fluoridation: a commentaryBr Dent J. 2002;192(9):495–7. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4801410aPMID 12047121.
  19. Jump up ^ Balbus JM, Lang ME. Is the water safe for my baby?. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2001;48(5):1129–52, viii. doi:10.1016/S0031-3955(05)70365-5PMID 11579665.
  20. Jump up ^ Asheboro notifies residents of over-fluoridation of water. 2010-06-29. Fox 8.
  21. Jump up to: a b c Pollick HF.  Water fluoridation and the environment: current perspective in the United States [PDF]. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2004;10(3):343–50. doi:10.1179/oeh.2004.10.3.343PMID 15473093.
  22. Jump up ^ Macek MD, Matte TD, Sinks T, Malvitz DM.  Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988–1994Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(1):130–4. doi:10.1289/ehp.8319PMID 16393670PMC 1332668.
  23. Jump up ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United StatesMMWR Recomm Rep. 2001;50(RR-14):1–42. PMID 11521913Lay summaryCDC, 2007-08-09.
  24. Jump up ^ Worthington H, Clarkson J. The evidence base for topical fluorides. Community Dent Health. 2003;20(2):74–6. PMID 12914024.
  25. Jump up ^ Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley V.  Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adultsJ Dent Res. 2007;86(5):410–5. doi:10.1177/154405910708600504PMID 17452559. Summary: Yeung CA. Fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages. Evid Based Dent. 2007;8(3):72–3. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400506PMID 17891121.
  26. Jump up ^ Truman BI, Gooch BF, Sulemana I et al..  Reviews of evidence on interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries [PDF]. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(1 Suppl):21–54. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00449-XPMID 12091093.
  27. Jump up to: a b Pizzo G, Piscopo MR, Pizzo I, Giuliana G. Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clin Oral Investig. 2007;11(3):189–93. doi:10.1007/s00784-007-0111-6PMID 17333303.
  28. Jump up ^ Burt BA, Tomar SL. Changing the face of America: water fluoridation and oral health. In: Ward JW, Warren C. Silent Victories: The History and Practice of Public Health in Twentieth-century America. Oxford University Press; 2007. ISBN 0-19-515069-4. p. 307–22.
  29. Jump up ^ Hausen HW.  Fluoridation, fractures, and teethBMJ. 2000;321(7265):844–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7265.844PMID 11021844.
  30. Jump up ^ Kumar JV.  Is water fluoridation still necessary?Adv Dent Res. 2008;20(1):8–12. doi:10.1177/154407370802000103PMID 18694870.
  31. Jump up ^ "Ten Great Public Health Achievements – United States, 1900–1999"U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
  32. Jump up ^ Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC.  Achievements in public health, 1900–1999: Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental cariesMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48(41):933–40.
  33. Jump up ^ "Fluoride & Fluoridation"American Dental Association.
  34. Jump up ^ "Fluoride in Drinking Water"Health Canada.
  35. Jump up ^ "Water fluoridation"World Water Day 2001: Oral healthWorld Health Organization.
  36. Jump up ^ Furukawa, S.; Hagiwara, Y.; Taguchi, C.; Turumoto, A.; Kobayashi, S. (2011). "Associations between oral health behavior and anxiety about water fluoridation and motivation to establish water fluoridation in Japanese residents". Journal of oral science 53 (3): 313–319. doi:10.2334/josnusd.53.313PMID 21959658.
  37. Jump up ^ Zwebner, Sarah (17 March 2014) הפלרת מי השתייה (In Hebrew, Pages 2-3 Dates of beginning of Water fluoridation practice in Israel: 1981 Optional, 2002 Mandatory) , KnessetResearch and Information Center, Retrieved 2 September 2014
  38. Jump up ^ Main, Douglas (29 August 2014) Israel Has Officially Banned Fluoridation of Its Drinking WaterNewsweek Retrieved 2 September 2014
  39. Jump up ^ "About your water". United Utilities.
  40. Jump up ^ "World Oral Health Report" (PDF)World Health Organization. Retrieved 4 March 2006.
  41. Jump up to: a b Musto RJ (October 1987). "Fluoridation: why is it not more widely adopted?"CMAJ 137(8): 705–8. PMC 1267306PMID 3651941.
  42. Jump up ^ Wrapson J (2005). "Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies in New Zealand:'Magic Bullet,'Rat Poison, or Communist Plot?"Health and History 7 (2): 17–29. doi:10.2307/40111610JSTOR 40111610.
  43. Jump up ^ Richmond VL (January 1985). "Thirty years of fluoridation: a review"Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 41 (1): 129–38. PMID 3917599.
  44. Jump up to: a b Henig, Robin Marantz; book, A Joseph Henry Press (1996-11-04). The People's Health:: A Memoir of Public Health and Its Evolution at Harvard. Joseph Henry Press. ISBN 9780309054928. Retrieved 10 September 2014.
  45. Jump up to: a b Henig, Robin Marantz (1997). The People's Health. Joseph Henry Press. p. 85. ISBN 0-309-05492-3.
  46. Jump up ^ Rovere, Richard H. (1959). Senator Joe McCarthy. University of California Press. pp. 21–22. ISBN 0-520-20472-7.
  47. Jump up ^ Politifact Florida "Say water fluoridation started in Nazi Germany ghettos and death camps to pacify the Jews." Politifact Florida accessed on 27 March 2014
  48. Jump up ^ Bryson, Christopher. "The Fluoride Deception: How a Nuclear Waste Made its Way Into the Nation's Drinking Water"Democracy Now, 17 June 2004
  49. Jump up ^ Bram van der Lek (1976). "De strijd tegen fluoridering"De Gids 139 (2).
  50. Jump up ^ Leonardus Johannes Antonius Damen, Peter Nicolaï, J.L. Boxum, K.J. de Graaf, J.H. Jans, A.P. Klap, A.T. Marseille, A.R. Neerhof, B.K. Olivier, B.J. Schueler, F.R. Vermeer, R.L. Vucsán (2005). "Deel 1: systeem, bevoegdheid, bevoegdheidsuitoefening, handhaving". Bestuursrecht[Control rights (legal)]. Boom juridische studieboeken (in Dutch). Boom Juridische uitgevers. pp. 54–55. ISBN 978-90-5454-537-8.
  51. Jump up ^ "Ryan v. A.G. IESC 1; IR 294 (3 July, 1965)". Irish Supreme Court.
  52. Jump up ^ Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills, 30 Cal. App. 3d 112, 115 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1973) ("Courts through the United States have uniformly held that fluoridation of water is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power in the interest of public health. The matter is no longer an open question." (citations omitted)).
  53. Jump up ^ Pratt, Edwin, Raymond D. Rawson & Mark Rubin, Fluoridation at Fifty: What Have We Learned, 30 J.L. Med. & Ethics 117, 119 (Fall 2002)

Further reading

External links

Комментарии (0)Просмотров (599)