I've just spent some time reading the script of an on-line question period that took place in December 2012. Dr. Cynthia Morrow was being questioned about the validity and efficacy of public water fluoridation. It is clear that she had no practical understanding of how fluoride supposedly works, or at least was unwilling to share it. She claimed that all of the anti-fluoride studies are “non-generalizable”, and that the studies she was citing were peer-reviewed science. She provided the following links to pro-fluoride “studies” that, she said, defend fluoridation effectively.

 http://www.thecommunityguide.org/oral/fluoridation.html 

http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf

If you felt like you were chasing your tail reading this literature, its okay; so did I. Fortunately, I did find this buried treasure. Apparently the pro-fluoride movement shares this story with pride.

During the 1930s, Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental officer of the U.S. Public Health Service, and his associates conducted classic epidemiological studies on the

geographic distribution and severity of fluorosis in the United States. These early studies were aimed at evaluating how high the fluoride levels in water could be before visible, severe dental fluorosis occurred. By 1936, Dean and his staff had made the critical discovery that fluoride levels of up to 1.0 part per million (ppm) in the drinking water did not cause the more severe forms of dental fluorosis.  Dean additionally noted a correlation between fluoride levels in the water and reduced incidence of dental decay.

So, are we supposed to be set at ease by this kind of science? They carefully calculated exactly how much fluoride it would take to cause severe dental fluorosis, and then set the safe limit slightly below that amount. Aren't they concerned if people suffer from mild dental fluorosis (which I do), or other internal bodily harm?

What is even more alarming is that Dr. Ada Bennett, Medical Officer of Health, Alberta South Zone, recently suggested, in a local radio interview, that Lethbridge citizens would not be at risk until we had 10-15 times more fluoride in the water. That would be 10 to 15 ppm. According to Dr. Dean, at 10-15 ppm everybody in Lethbridge would be suffering from very severe dental fluorosis.

Why are we expected to believe Dr. Bennett? She might wear a white coat, but these are not white lies.