Case Against Fluoride: How hazardous waste ended up in our drink

Case Against Fluoride: How hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there

When the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950, there was little evidence of its safety. Now, six decades later and after most countries have rejected the practice, many cities and towns across the United States continue to fluoridate their water supply and the Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association continue to endorse it, despite increasing evidence that it is not only unnecessary, but potentially hazardous to human health.

In this timely and important book, Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck, and Dr. H. Spedding Micklem take a new look at the science behind water fluoridation and argue that just because the medical establishment endorses a public health measure, that doesn't mean it's safe. In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals used to fluoridate the water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not pharmaceutical grade, but rather hazardous waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry; it is illegal to dump them into rivers and lakes or release them into the atmosphere. And water fluoridation is a prime example of one of the worst medical practices possible-forced medication with no control over the dose or who gets it. Perhaps most shocking of all, it is not subject to any federal regulation.

At once painstakingly-documented and also highly-readable, The Case Against Fluoride brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and kidneys, and argues that while there is possible value in topical applications like brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, the evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak. The Case Against Fluoride doesn't question the good intentions of dentists who support fluoridation, but rather explores the poor science, bizarre tactics, biased reviews, and puzzling motivations of a relatively small number of influential people who continue to push this practice on a largely ill-informed public.