Cost for fluoride in Calgary’s water would be $30 million: City report

There would also be ongoing maintenance costs of $2 million to $4 million; report goes to council committee Dec. 1

Calgary city council voted to add the fluoride question to the October municipal election ballot. LIVEWIRE CALGARY FILE PHOTO

Reintroducing fluoride into Calgary’s water will cost the city a total of $30 million, with annual operating and maintenance costs of up to $4 million.

An administration review coming to the Priorities and Finance committee on Dec. 1 outlines the estimated cost to return fluoride to Calgary’s water. The chemical additive was removed from the city water supply after a contentious debate in 2011.

In 2019, the city’s Community and Protective Services committee accepted a fluoridation report from the O’Brien Institute for Public Health. Based on that, council directed administration to investigate the cost of reintroducing it.

The city report was clear that the estimated costs were not included within the approved water utility budget. Budget revisions would be required and presented to council for approval.

“The operating, maintenance and capital costs will result in additional investments and expenditures, if approved, however they are not of the magnitude that would require an associated increase in water utility rates,” read the city report.

The plan that came back included plans for set up at both Calgary’s Bearspaw and Glenmore water treatment plants. It’s based on a 20-year life cycle.

At the time this was considered, Coun. Evan Woolley, who initiated the motion, said that having a provincial cost component was also important.

“I mean, I’ve never really understood why, just because we’re the one that delivers the water, why we’re the ones that have to deliver what very significantly sits within Alberta Health Services,” said Woolley.

More than half-century debate over fluoride in Calgary’s water

When the original O’Brien report was delivered, several members of the public and the science community were also allowed to present. While the presentations were cordial, the issue itself is contentious.

It first went to a plebiscite in 1957. Calgarians again voted on it in 1989 and fluoride was put in the water. It went to plebiscite again in 1999 and was in Calgary’s water for another 12 years. A notice of motion came forward in 2009 and in 2011, the fluoride bylaw was repealed.

The primary points of debate are around the reduction in tooth decay, especially among children in low income households.

When Calgary removed the fluoride, it also provided $750,000 in one-time funding for the Alex Community Health bus to provide oral health care.

On the other side, the worsening of a condition called fluorosis, the idea of mass medication in the water, along with the occurrence of elevated levels of fluoride in water that makes it into the watershed, are some of the main points of opposition.

During the provincial election, then Alberta Party leader Stephen Mandel suggested he would encourage cities, including Calgary, to adopt fluoridation as a public health measure.

Administration has just brought the report forward for information. No action is recommended at this time.

About Darren Krause 1188 Articles
Journalist, husband, father, golfer, writer, painter, video gamer, gardener, amateur botanist, dreamer, realist... never in that order.


  1. Follow the science, please! The press is still ignoring the very most important point-fluoride is a proven neurotoxin and damages kid’s brains!
    Canada’s leading scientists have put out some of the best science on this failing practice of artificial water fluoridation in the past 3 years, and continue to do so.
    The major NTP Report gave fluoride the highest rating for neurotoxicity possible. The EPA is being taken to court as we write for adding a known neurotoxin to public water at uncontrolled dosages and without follow up or informed consent.
    Let’s get on with public health policies that actually work. Brain damage, thyroid and kidney harm, gut trauma and bone dysfunction to save 1/2 to 1 cavity is NOT good public policy.

    • Yes. Follow the science. The Canadian study that purports to find a weak association between fluoride intake and cognitive changes was found by the Canadian Agency on Drugs and Technologies in Health to be a study whose “conclusion is not supported by its data”. A damning outcome. In other words, there is no reliable evidence that fluoridation harms the brain.

      The National Toxicology Program report is a draft report. It is reviewed by the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) which is actually independent of the anti-fluoridationists. NASEM found the 2019 report to be entirely inadequate and sent the authors back to the drawing board. NASEM is likely to do the same for the second draft report.

      Anti-fluoridationists seek to end water fluoridation in the United States by litigation. The fact that one sues does not mean that one will win. The fact that anti-fluoridationist seek to end a public health measure that helps everyone and harms no one is nothing to brag about. Next up will be routine childhood vaccination.

      • What would you know about science? Unlike me, and many other forced-fluoridation freedom fighters, you don’t have any scientific qualifications and show no sign of having read any of the relevant literature. The only thing you could do to defend the safety of forced-fluoridation would be to cite good quality research which supports your claim, but the problem you have is you can’t do that because no such research exists. As a result, you lot are entirely dependent on handwaving twaddle.

        There is nothing anyone can do to defend the unethical nature of forced-fluoridation, because using public water supplies to deliver any medication is clearly a violation of the principle of informed consent to medical intervention, and therefore an abuse of human rights.

    • Dr. Dickson,

      Respectfully, your arguments were not based in science when you presented at the Calgary Community and Protective Services Committee meeting last year. Your delegation presented before this committee during their nine-hour meeting. You stood beside the lead conspiracy anti-fluoridation leaders in the U.S. and spoke against CWF. Your group even tried to mislead the committee by claiming that one person you were speaking about was a Nobel Laureate. Councillor Woolley called attention to this that that person WAS NOT a Nobel Laureate. Quite interestingly, the lead anti-CWF leader in the U.S., British-American Chemist Paul Connett, stepped forward and stated “Well, he should have been”.

      Follow the credibly conducted evidence-based science which continues to support the effectiveness and safety of CWF for everyone, regardless of age, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, level of education, or access to dental care. CWF is the closest thing that we have to a vaccination against the most common chronic disease of childhood and teens. Cavities are an infectious and transmissible disease. Let’s get rid of it.

      Please vote to move to the next step in restarting fluoridation for all of your families, especially those most at risk of cavities, the marginalized.

      Thank you,


      • Arvid Carlsson was a forced-fluoridation freedom fighter who won the 2000 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for his research on the brain neurotransmitter dopamine. He also warned about the possibility of fluoride negatively impacting on the brain, which turns out to have been prescient, and pointed out (as have many others) that dental fluorosis is a toxic effect, not just a cosmetic effect as claimed by fluoridationists.

        I am not familiar with the incident referred to, but Albert Schatz was a forced-fluoridation freedom fighter who should have been awarded a Nobel Prize.

        The “credibly conducted evidence-based science” which Johnny’s Johnson refers to is a figment of his imagination. Unfortunately I am very familiar with this clown, going back at least as far as the battle in Portland, Oregon in 2013, which we won in a public vote 61 to 39%. This guy is the epitome of a braindead parrot. He also happens to be from Florida, which has a big phosphate fertiliser industry, the highly toxic fluoride waste of which is the main source of fluoridation chemicals.

      • F-FFF,

        Watch the video of the meeting. That is, IF you really want to see what you missed. It was only nine hours of delegations speaking. I was there, discussing ALL of the science.

        Scientists look at all science. Not just what makes us feel good or supports what we would like to see. ALL science adds to the body of literature on a subject. It is the peer review of that scientific study that determines whether the study, once replicated, validated, and shown to be clinically significant, actually shows a trend that indicates that a public health measure is either in need of review or whether it continues to show what prior studies have shown, that changes may occur.

        Educate thyself. That’s all I ask. Stop denigrating others in an attempt to gain credibility.

      • I have never seen Johnny’s Johnson display any sign of having read ANY of the science. No matter how many times him and the rest of the forced-fluoridation freaks are challenged to cite a single good quality study which indicates that forced-fluoridation is anything but harmful and useless, they come back with zilch. His reference to clinical significance is comical because they don’t have any clinical trials they can point to, let alone any double-blind randomised controlled trials, which are routine for other medications.

      • All the science? You excluded the Mexico study and included junk. You seem to rely more on warm assurances and a grandfatherly demeanor than on an open mind or acknowledgement of your own bias. I appreciate people who are civil, but you might want to drop the use of “thyself”. It comes across like you think of yourself as some sort of oracle or spiritual leader.

    • Your so called “Canada’s leading scientists” and their studies out of York University remind me of a quote by the late Nobel Prize winner, Ronald Coase, PhD, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” Boys and girls together: IQ goes slightly up; boys alone: IQ goes slightly down; but girls alone, IQ goes slightly up. One of many critiques of Green/Till studies is by René Najera, PhD, epidemiology in a 3 part blog:

      Other factors that contribute to brain development: talking and reading to your baby, toddler, child.

      • More guilt by association to vaccination, a condescending reference to Dr, Strangelove and no better evidence, from anyone, that didn’t find an effect. We can file this under desperate attempts to distract by someone in the public health field who is worried. Come back when to have something, and it better not just be one paper with a worse study design.

        Where’s Steve? I googled Steve Slott obituary but he still seems to be breathing. You’re going to have to reprimand him at the next society tea for dereliction of duty.

      • You are lying. IQ did not go up at all with boys and girls together, even without taking statistical significance into account, and with or without adjustment for confounders. The lower IQ in boys was not slight, it was statistically significant and similar in magnitude to that from lead exposure in the time when lead was still being added to gasoline, paint, and so on – a fact which has been pointed out by experts in the developmental neurotoxicity of lead. The difference in girls alone was not only slight, and not only not statistically significant, it had a p-value nowhere near what is required for statistical significance. I have read the studies. Maybe you haven’t.

        It is well-known that there are sex differences with regard to many health issues, including developmental neurotoxicity. Characterising analyses of data on the basis of sex as torturing the data is laughable. You fluoridationist creeps are torturing millions of people, however.

      • I invite the readers to read part 3 of Dr. René Najera blog above to realize the holes in this study. It concluded: “Finally, I hope that public health policy is not done on based on this paper. It would be a terrible way to do public health policy. Scientific discovery and established scientific facts are reproducible and verifiable, and they are based on better study designs and stronger statistical outcomes than this. Unfortunately, as we have seen with the MMR vaccine and other pseudoscience, all that denialism needs to seed itself in a group or individual is something to agree with preconceived and erroneous notions, no matter how flawed that something is. Thank you for your time.”

        I also suggest that the reader review Dr. Johnny Johnson’s post on the update on IQ.

        BTW: Since fluoridation began in 1945, IQ has risen in the U.S. an average of 15 points. The nations with the highest average IQ in the World are the island nations of Singapore and Hong Kong. Guess what? They’re both fluoridated.

      • All Kurt is demonstrating is that he is either scientifically illiterate or extremely dishonest. He displays no grasp of the difference between correlation and causation, which is basic reasoning and basic statistics. The purpose of good quality research such as that led by Howard Hu and Bruce Lanphear is to compare outcomes among people living in similar circumstances to each other, measure relevant variables on an individual basis while trying to minimise both random and systematic error, adjust for potential confounding factors, and establish a dose-response relationship between exposure and outcome. That is how you determine if an observed difference is likely to be caused by the variable of interest, in this case fluoride exposure, or by one or more other factors. You don’t just guess based on pseudoscientific nonsense of the kind which Robert Kehoe, who was also a key promoter of forced-fluoridation, used to defend the addition of lead to gasoline. (By the way, the fluoridationists have never established a dose-response relationship for anything, not even the supposed reduction in tooth decay. They have tried to make out that a bogus concentration-response relationship is the same thing, but it isn’t.)

        If fluoridationist “logic” were applied to tooth decay, you would conclude that forced-fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay because the best dental statistics are in countries without forced-fluoridation, and in the Netherlands tooth decay massively declined AFTER forced-fluoridation ended there, but they conveniently ignore such facts.

    • Bobby, I’m disappointed that you didn’t show up for the Green Bay City Council vote on fluoridation last Monday, December 1st. Vote was 9-3 to continue their fluoridation program.

      Even Paul Connett showed up. He kept writing on paper in big letters, “NTP, NTP, and holding it up to his computer camera. Didn’t work. City council had heard enough from Brenda and her merry pranksters.

      Fluoridation continues in Green Bay!!

  2. There is one major concern with fluoridation that isn’t mentioned. Early exposure is now linked to neurologic harm in kids.

    and underactive thyroid in adults with an iodine deficiency.

    The CBC coverage of the effort to get fluoride back in Calgary’s water didn’t mention this research or any of the other studies showing harm at levels common in fluoridated communities. There is no doubt they are aware of the evidence, but clearly think the public doesn’t need the whole picture.

    This sort of unbalanced reporting shouldn’t happen with publicly funded media but the CBC has always acted this way in covering the debate. Their latest trick is to run a story, only quoting proponents, and then cut off comments in just a day, so that there isn’t much time for rebuttal.

  3. The reason the research is not mentioned is because it is not reliable. Public health experts review all studies and are trained to know which are reliable.

    • In other words, you have no capacity to assess the research yourself, so you rely on your uneducated view of who the real experts are and your distorted interpretation of what they have to say. So-called “public health experts” are trained to follow orders from corrupt politicians and corporations. Many actual experts in the field of developmental neurotoxicity have spoken against forced-fluoridation in the last few years, including Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu, and Bruce Lanphear, who testified in court against the US EPA a few months ago. Kathleen Thiesesen, who is an expert on fluoride toxicity in general, also testified against the EPA. I watched every minute of the trial live, but already knew most of what was said because, unlike the fluoridationists, I have read the relevant literature and am capable of understanding it. The EPA hired 2 “expert” witnesses from the consulting firm Exponent Inc., which is usually hired by industry to defend its crimes, and even they admitted that the best quality research on the developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride in humans is that led by Howard Hu (as part of the Mexican ELEMENT study) and Bruce Lanphear (as part of the Canadian MIREC study). One of the strengths of that research is that it actually measured individual fluoride exposure, unlike the very low quality “research” from New Zealand which the polluters rely on.

      • I have lots of words for children, especially those consuming fluoridated formula but you have never shown an interest in hearing them. I can’t answer a statement which has a pre-supposition that hasn’t been demonstrated as true. I also don’t know what a “racialized” person is. People seem to use it to refer to those who are in a racial minority within a group, but the dictionary definition is different.

      • Julia, another of the old dentists has shown up. If you are still offended by ad hominen attacks, perhaps you could give him a talking to about that and ask him if he has any evidence to refute any of the recent studies showing harm from early exposure.

    • Your public health “experts” wasted a million dollars of public money to conduct research that could never have shown anything, because the timing of the data points didn’t match with the cessation of fluoridation. Then they omitted evidence they had which was contrary to their conclusions.

      They marketed this “research” to the MSM who was too lazy to look at it closely (except for Colby Cosh) and now you still often refer to it as if it has some value. Forgive me if I don’t put too much weight on anything you or your public health people say about the reliability of studies. Come back when you have something to refute the research showing harm.

      • Why would anyone attempt to convince a person about the safety of water fluoridation when that person profits from scaring people about tap water and sells bottle water? This concern for “I’ and “me” is quite telling. Not a word for children, seniors, disabled and racialized persons whose oral health has declined in Calgary because of fluoridation cessation.

      • From David Green’s Rocky Ridge Bottled Water Company website:

        BPA in Bottles
        In 2008 there was a great deal of media and internet speculation about the health effects of Bisphenol-A (BPA). Health Canada concluded that BPA plastics should not be used in baby bottles, or any application where the food container may be heated. Polycarbonate plastic bottles used by the bottled water industry have shown no significant BPA migration at normal temperatures. PC bottles remain the safest, most cost-effective and environmentally sound way to distribute high-quality drinking water. We do have other plastic bottles manufactured without BPA, available to purchase for self-filling.

        His bottled water comes in BPA-containing bottles, but for a price, he’ll sell you non-BPA bottles. Mr. Green creates fear of fluoridation in order to promote and profit his company.

      • As is the case in most controversial issues these days, it is very elucidating to follow the money. In Canada, it’s more obtuse as it is primarily the significant 6 figure salaries and benefits in the public health chain of command, and the 6 figures that supportive dentists derive from fluoride treatments, most often without having to see the patients.
        But the primary driver of this antiquated and failing public health debacle is in the USA, where the fertilizer industry gains hundreds of millions of $ by disposing of their toxic waste in our public waters rather than in a high tech and expensive toxic waste disposal facility, and the major pharm corps like Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Colgate etc which at last count exceed $20 billion yearly from sales of fluoride products. This creates a self serving cascade of lobby $ to many of the trade and professional support organizations that blindly and obediently fall in line to support water fluoridation, and attack and denigrate anyone brave and courageous enough to do or support the new (and old) science showing a myriad of harms, especially to the fetus, babies, small children, immunocompromised, those with co-morbid conditions, the elderly, and people of colour.

  4. Definitely, follow (and trust) the science as described by Dr. Guichon and in the O’Brien Institute and Canadian Agency on Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) reports that confirm the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation CWF) to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems.

    Dickson’s reference was an op-ed coauthored by Christine Till – a coauthor of the 8/2019 Green, et al. fluoride/IQ study, and an author/coauthor of other studies heavily promoted by fluoridation opponents, recently spoke at an IAOMT conference 9/2020 that also featured defrocked autism/vaccine British doctor Andrew Wakefield and false coronavirus information promulgator Judy Mikovits
    ~> Initial 2/2019 CADTH CWF Reports:
    ~> 10/2019 Rapid Response CADTH review of the 8/2019 Green, et al. study:
    ~> The Green, et al. study prompted immediate, withering criticism from relevant experts worldwide:

    Ignore the opinions of Dickson and Green that distort the findings of science &/or promote poorly conducted studies that are, unfortunately, able to convince some members of the public who are not trained/experienced science or health professionals, but have been unable to change the 75-year scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective.

    Fluoridation opponents have no explanation for these critical facts:
    ~> Over 100 well-respected science and health organizations (not just dental groups) world-wide, including the World Health Organization, support the safety and effectiveness of CWF.
    ~> No well-respected science or health organizations I am aware of has voiced any concerns about the safety of CWF. This includes the national thyroid and cancer societies.
    >~ No major, respected science or health organization in the world supports the anti-fluoridation opinions that CWF is ineffective &/or harmful to health as legitimate. There is also absolutely no evidence that a significant number of science &/or health professionals oppose CWF.
    ~> Anti-F opinions are only supported by a few outlier science/health “experts”, a handful of alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, vocal activist groups like FAN and the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].

      • FFF, it is sad to: 1. Hide by not stating one’s name; 2. Engage in ad hominem attacks rather than in argument; and 3. Engage in conspiracy thinking – there is no conspiracy.

  5. Community water fluoridation (CWF) is an effective, safe, and socially equitable public health preventive measure.

    75 years of CWF in the U.S., and over 6,600 studies and research papers published on PubMed, supports the effectiveness and safety of CWF. The overwhelming preponderance of credibly conducted research that has published in credibly recognized, peer reviewed scientific journals, continues to support CWF as effective in reducing cavities by at least 25% over a person’s lifetime. Adults and children all benefit from fluoride’s cavity fighting abilities.

    A long list of claims of health ills are purported by those who oppose CWF. These claims emanate from the U.S. by a conspiratorial group who use the internet to amplify their voices. They are a small group led by a retired British-American chemistry professor whose group has aligned themselves with the lead anti-vaccination group in the U.S. Science is not based on opinion. It is based on credibly conducted research. Conspiracies, especially those aimed to invoke fear in pregnant mothers, is unforgivable.

    Those who oppose CWF lack any recognition from any credibly recognized scientific or health organization in the world. Not a single credible scientific or health organization opposes CWF. Not one.

    Choose who you listen to wisely. To whom would you entrust your babies to for their health and well-being, a paediatrician, or someone who espouses conspiracies and discredited research by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health?

    CWF is endorsed by leading health and scientific organizations in world, including:
    Canadian Paediatric Society
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    Canadian Medical Association
    American Medical Association
    Canadian Dental Association
    American Dental Association
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    Canadian Public Health Association
    American Public Health Association
    World Health Organization

    Please vote to move forward with CWF for the oral and overall bodily health of your families in Calgary. Stop the pain. It is worth the investment.



    Dr. Johnny Johnson, Jr.
    Pediatric Dentist

      • Hi folks. It is so interesting when the opponents show up slinging mud to confuse the readers. The evidence-based credible science is tossed aside as though it never existed. That’s how conspirators work.

        Scientists are held to a higher standard. First, we don’t hide behind faux names. Like Dr. McLaren who conducted the Calgary cessation studies and has undergone overt and covert threats for doing this research, we too get those threats. That’s how cowards and conspirators behave. Threaten people, make up facts to support their science-fictitious claims, then throw stones at the those of us who stand behind our statements with scientific evidence that’s been duplicated, validated, and shown to be clinically relevant.

        Want to know how we discovered the cavity fighting benefits of the natural mineral, fluoride? Educate thyself:
        The Story of Fluoridation:

      • Still no citation of an original research study by Johnny’s Johnson. Why am I not surprised?

        The link provided by him has nothing to do with the latest research, it is a version of the foundation myth of forced-fluoridation. I happen to have read the correspondence between Frederick Sumner McKay, who supposedly discovered the benefit of fluoride in drinking water, and his collaborator and mentor Greene Vardiman Black, a PDF of which can be found on my website. I have also read the original 1916 articles by those 2 dentists in The Dental Cosmos on the subject of mottled teeth (later renamed dental fluorosis), and numerous other papers by McKay and his contemporaries. The version of events provided by NIDCR is complete and utter garbage.

    • It’s sad watching the old dentists of the American Fluoridation Society as they try to convince themselves that what they have been promoting their whole career is valid.

    • Says the person who, instead of presenting any evidence, as I requested, suggested that I oppose fluoridation in order to make more money. That seems like the definition of an ad hominen attack.

      “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.”

      Do you ever look in the mirror before posting?

  6. All of the leading health authorities recommend fluoridation as a safe, effective way to reduce the number of dental cavities in children and adults. This includes the Public Health Agency of Canada and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    The coronavirus pandemic has offered us a lesson that there a significant number of myths and conspiracy theories circulate online. No city should allow its public health policies to be driven by such myths. Fluoridated water has 75 years of research and experience behind it.

    This Public Health Agency of Canada fact sheet has more info:

      • F-FFF & DG,

        You ask for that which you already know, but pretend not to.

        1. Countless studies on cavity reductions have been conducted on children and adults which are up-to-date.

        Additionally, Systematic Reviews of cavity reductions have been conducted which look at individual studies and conclude that community water fluoridation (CWF) indeed continues reduce cavities and is safe for all.

        I will be happy to supply examples at the end of this response for readers who are truly interested in learning about the effectiveness and safety of CWF.

        2. F-FFF: You asked for studies on “forced” fluoridation. Nothing is forced about the natural fluoride mineral in your water. It exists naturally in nearly all water, but typically at levels too low to prevent cavities.

        You are undoubtedly aware that fluoride exists naturally in the water in Canada and around the world at levels that are up to 20ppm or more. Canada sets the maximum level for fluoride allowed in public water systems at 1.5ppm to help reduce the potential for dental fluorosis that is noticeable by laypersons.

        The U.S. Courts of last resort have never ruled CWF to be a forced medication, medication, infringement upon rights, or a myriad of claims made by opponents. This is where one takes claims when they feel they have been wronged for definitive decisions. The same is true in Canada.

        You may find any claim that you’d like to enter into the website below to see the court cases where these have been tried. 108 lawsuits have been filed by opponents in court in the U.S., and all 108 have failed in halting CWF.

      • Studies of cavity reductions: (just a few for you)

        Systematic Review of Evidence Pertaining to Factors That Modify Risk of Early Childhood Caries

        Conclusion: The best available evidence indicates that breastfeeding up to 2 y of age does not increase ECC risk. Providing access to fluoridated water and educating caregivers are justified approaches to ECC prevention. Limiting sugars in bottles and complementary foods should be part of this education.


        A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Community Water Fluoridation and Prevalence of Pediatric Dental Surgery Among Medicaid Enrollees

        Conclusions and Relevance
        This study extends our understanding of CWF’s benefits for children’s oral health. Specifically, these findings suggest that increasing a population’s access to CWF’s is associated with decreased caries-related visits and may also be associated with use of dental surgical services within high-risk populations.

        Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents

        “These findings confirm a substantial caries-preventive benefit of CWF for U.S. children and that the benefit is most pronounced in primary teeth.”

        Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children’s Dental Disease

        Conclusions: This study demonstrates the continued community effectiveness of water fluoridation and provides support for the extension of this important oral health intervention to populations currently without access to fluoridated water.

        Preventive benefit of access to fluoridated water for young adults,increasingly%20important%20across%20longer%20spans

        Conclusion: Early life access to fluoridated water was not as strongly associated with caries outcomes than either full lifetime access or access across the more proximal years with the caries outcome of young adults, especially after adjustment for covariates which may become increasingly important across longer spans of the life course.

      • I asked for research that looked for neurological harm but couldn’t find any. I also asked that it not have any limitations that were more serious than the research that you are unwilling to accept.

      • I asked Johnny’s Johnson to cite a single good quality original research study, not random garbage. The first on his list is a systematic review, which fluoridationists routinely misrepresent and use as smokescreens, not original research. Apparently he doesn’t understand the difference.

        The 2nd publication listed is not a good quality study. Some of its weaknesses are that it is cross-sectional, unblinded, relies on subjective measurement of outcomes, does not measure fluoride exposure, potential confounders, or outcomes on an individual basis, and does not measure potential confounders such as sugar consumption, toothbrushing, or status of nutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, or vitamin D. To top it off, the results don’t actually support the conclusions. From the study: “In this cross-sectional study of Medicaid-enrolled children from 5 states, increasing the proportion of the population exposed to community water fluoridation water was associated with a lower prevalence of caries-related visits in both adjusted and unadjusted analyses and with a lower prevalence of dental surgical procedures in unadjusted analysis only.” So-called “caries-related visits” are not the same as actual tooth decay. As for dental surgical procedures, there was no apparent benefit after adjusting for potential confounders.

        The others on the list are not good quality studies either. It’s always the same with the forced-fluoridation floggers. They have nothing.

    • If fluoridated water has 75 years of research and experience behind it, why has it taken until now for someone to look at the neurologic effects from early exposure?

      Lead pipes had “experience” dating back to the Romans. If experience with unseen things were valuable, it wouldn’t have taken until the 60s for the problems with lead to be recognized.

  7. There is another thing that all the “leading health authorities” share: a bias to say what they have always said. Imagine what would happen if they were to ever admit that fluoridation was a mistake. The public would ask what other of their assurances are valid. It would be a nightmare that would threaten a lot of jobs and grants to the public health field, and the lawyers would likely have a field day, attaching blame to anyone who could be deemed negligent.

      • You didn’t seem to think it was a problem to suggest that I have a bias but when I explain the obvious bias of the promoters, it becomes conspiracy thinking.

    • David – Your argument might have some merit if institutions such as the CDC had a track record of never revising their recommendations on health issues. But the opposite is true. In fact, the CDC has revised or changed many of its recommendations (on Zika virus, COVID and many other topics) as new evidence justified it.

      The fact that the CDC continues to recommend water fluoridation speaks volumes — because they have reviewed the recent research and have seen no solid evidence that would warrant such a change.

      • You have to understand that it isn’t the whole CDC that is involved with fluoridation, just the oral health division. The people who are involved with infectious diseases haven’t had to defend long held positions because with things like Covid or other viruses, everyone understands that the landscape changes quickly.

        Long promoted programs that have been challenged and therefore defended for a long time are more like a big ship that can’t change direction without a lot of force and time. It must be hard for the oral health division to get the data from the CDC NHANES surveys, that have shown increasing and epidemic levels of dental fluorosis, at least up until the last one in 2011-12, and wonder how they can still defend their policy.

  8. IQ IQ IQ IQ……..CWF; naturally occurring levels of fluoride in water; high naturally occurring fluoride levels in water in other countries

    (Note: Only studies on IQ which involved fluoride in water were included here. A Mexican study where fluoridation of water is not practiced, but instead salt is fluoridated, is purposely omitted. It is not an apples to apples comparison}

    IQ Studies leading up to current

    In this section, I will summarize studies (including a Meta-analysis) which have been conducted on fluoride levels in water and potential neurotoxicity (IQ scores).

    A. Harvard Meta-analysis: Fluoride at levels of CWF = No IQ Deficits
    In 2012, Anna Choi and Philippe Grandjean et al published a Meta-analysis of IQ studies conducted in villages in China, Mongolia, and Iran
    “Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 120 | number 10 | October 2012

    • The authors evaluated 27 studies to determine if naturally occurring fluoride in water at levels up to 15 times of that in CWF (0.7ppm) showed any effect on IQ.

    • The Control Groups had fluoride in their water at levels equivalent to CWF.
    • The high fluoride groups had fluoride in their water up to 11.5ppm.

    • The results showed that the high fluoride group had a 7-point deficit in IQ.

    • The Control Group showed NO IQ effects.

    • While even the authors of this Meta-analysis agreed these studies had key information missing, inadequate control for confounders, and questionable methodologies, their results bore out that fluoride at levels equivalent to CWF had no effects on IQ.

    B. New Zealand: CWF = No IQ deficits
    A longitudinal study conducted in Dunedin, New Zealand was published in 2015. Jonathon Broadbent et al followed two cohorts of children over a 38-year period of time from CWF and non-CWF areas to clarify the relationship between CWF and IQ.
    “Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand”, Am J Public Health. 2015;105: 72–76

    • Approximately 1000 children were recruited from CWF and the same from non-CWF communities.
    • IQ was measured repeatedly between the ages of 7-13 years old and again at age 38 years.
    • There was a 95.4% retention rate of children from each group after 38 years of follow-up.

    • Results. No clear differences in IQ because of fluoride exposure were noted.
    These findings held after adjusting for potential confounding variables, including sex, socioeconomic status, breastfeeding, and birth weight (as well as educational attainment for adult IQ outcomes).

    • Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status. (JJ highlighting)

    C. Sweden: Fluoride at CWF levels = no IQ deficits
    A national study by two Swedish economists, Linuz Aggeborn and Mattis Öhman, was conducted to evaluate the levels of fluoride in the water and its impact on the labor market. Their white paper was published online in 2017 by the Swedish Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy. This study was not included in the draft of the first NTP report.

    “The Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water”, Aggeborn, L, Öhman, M.,

    This study has now been accepted for publication in the most prestigious economic journal in the world, the Journal of Political Economy

    Available data for individuals born between 1985 and 1992 were reported. Information about the concentration of fluoride in the drinking water was available, and the primary outcomes were cognitive and non-cognitive test results, scores on math tests as well as the impact of exposure to fluoride in the water on the labor market.

    When discussing fluoride in the water supply, in addition to adding fluoride to municipal supply, ground water often naturally contains fluoride as a result of its passage through rock. In Sweden, the ground water is naturally fluoridated (not CWF), the levels are monitored, and authorities allow the concentration to be maintained if the concentration is at or below the recommended upper level of 1.5 parts per million.

    The authors acknowledge the controversy related to fluoride exposure and adverse effects on cognitive function but point out that in a number of those studies the fluoride concentration was well above the concentration considered to be safe, and some studies suffered from methodological deficiencies.

    Their analysis of the available data for the 1985 to 1992 birth cohorts includes IQ at the age of 16 (for a subset of the population), and dental outcomes in 2008 and 2013, as well as income and employment data from 2014. The fluoride exposure via the water supply was determined based on residence and national data on fluoride concentration in each region. Potential confounders were also considered in the analysis. The total population of the cohort was 825,000 persons, with subsets available for a more detailed analysis (e.g. 728,000 persons were evaluated for the important outcome of employment status).

    • First, we reconfirm the long-established positive effect of fluoride on dental health.
    • Second, we estimate a zero-effect on cognitive ability – in contrast to several recent epidemiological studies.
    • Third, fluoride is found to increase labor income.
    This effect is foremost driven by individuals from a lower socioeconomic background.

    D. Spanish Study: Positive impact on IQ at with CWF
    Fluorinated water consumption in pregnancy and neuropsychological development of children at 14 months and 4 years of age, L. Santa-Marina et al, Environmental Epidemiology: October 2019 – Volume 3 – Issue – p 386-387

    Conclusions: Prenatal exposure at the levels found in fluorinated drinking water may exert a beneficial effect on the development at 4 years of age. At low doses, fluoride could present a dose-response pattern with a beneficial effect. (JJ bolding)

    E. Canada: IQ deficits in a subgroup of boys
    A study published in 2019 from Canada showed a decrease in IQ for a subset of boys:
    “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in offspring in Canada”, Rivka Green, Christine Till, et al, JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Aug 19;173(10):940-948

    • Measured fluoride in urine from pregnant mothers in CWF and non-CWF cities in Canada.
    • Measured IQ of offspring at age 3-4 only once.
    • Overall IQ difference between both boys and girls in CWF vs non-CWF was 0.14 IQ points.
    • Analysis of subgroups, a secondary analysis of the data, was conducted to see if correlation in a smaller subgroup could be found.
    • A subgroup analysis found a significant decrease in IQ of boys (4.49), but a non-significant increase in IQ in girls.

    Conclusions and relevance: In this study, maternal exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years. These findings indicate the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy.

    1. A deeper look at the Green et al study:

    • The Green et al. study was funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars through the National Institute of Health.

    • NOWHERE in their conclusions did they state that pregnant women should not drink CWF.

    • The data was requested by researchers who wanted to perform statistical analyses on Green’s data to determine if they concurred with the conclusions. Green and Till denied access to their data.

    • Sharing of data among researchers is commonplace in the scientific world. Refusal to share is a red flag. An example of this was when Andrew Wakefield, the English physician who reported that autism was caused by immunizations, and was published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet, would not share his data. After years of efforts, his data was accessed and found not to support his conclusions. Wakefield lost his medical license in England and Lancet retracted the article. He had “cooked the books”.

    • A group of 30 international researchers and academicians from all fields wrote a letter to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences requesting the Green et al. data along with many concerns of the methodologies of the study. The date of that letter was October 23, 2019. To date, the raw data has not been released.

    2. Critical Review of Green, Till, et al:
    The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH):
    (Note: This is a very important document to review for all studies discussed, including the Broadbent et al New Zealand CWF and IQ study, the Aggeborn and Öhman study out of Sweden, Choi and Grandjean, and others)

    • CADTH is an independent, not-for-profit organization responsible for providing Canada’s health care decision-makers with objective evidence to help make informed decisions about the optimal use of drugs and medical devices in our health care system.

    • Created in 1989 by Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments, CADTH was born from the idea that Canada needs a coordinated approach to assessing health technologies. The result was an organization that harnesses Canadian expertise from every region and produces evidence-informed solutions that benefit patients in jurisdictions across the country

    • CADTH conducted a review of the Green et al study. This review included many other studies and their reviews of them as well.

    • “CADTH RAPID RESPONSE REPORT: SUMMARY WITH CRITICAL APPRAISAL Community Water Fluoridation Exposure: A Review of Neurological and Cognitive Effects”, October 23, 2019, made the following statements on the Green et al study (a few of numerous statements regarding the study’s limitations):

    • Limitations:
    • “The study by Green et al., 201913 concluded that “maternal exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years.” (p. E1) This conclusion was not supported by the data.”

    • “No attempt was made to control for potential important confounding factors including parental IQ, father’s education, socioeconomic status, duration of breastfeeding, postnatal exposure to fluoride, postnatal diet and nutrition, child’s health status, and other confounders between birth and the children’s age of 3 or 4 when IQ was measured.18,19 Although the authors controlled for and performed sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of association estimates for a number of substances (including lead, mercury, arsenic) in the mothers’ blood samples, they did not consider postnatal exposure of children to these substances. Lead, in particular has been found to have a high association with IQ in children.23 With incomplete control for potential confounders, it remains uncertain to know if the effect is true, and if it is due to prenatal exposure or postnatal exposure.”

    • “The evidence is weak due to multiple limitations (e.g., non-homogeneous distribution of data, potential errors and biases in the estimation of maternal fluoride exposure and in IQ measurement, uncontrolled potential important confounding factors); therefore, the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution.”

    “Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses” Guth, S et al, Archives of Toxicology, 26 March 2020

    • This was a systematic review in which researchers examined the Green et al. study and several others, concluding that:

    • “based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.”

    • “An additional limitation of the study performed by Green et al. (2019) is that the intelligence tests have been performed only once between the age of 3 and 4 years, but the exact age of the children at the time point of the test has not been considered in the statistical analysis. This may be problematic, because the IQ of children changes strongly between 3 and 4 years.”


    In light of the continuing research into cognitive development and factors which can influence it negatively, we must continue to rely on the preponderance of scientific evidence over the past 75 years of fluoridation in the U.S. and around the world. CWF has been repeatedly shown to be effective and safe.

    One study cannot and should never change public health policy. Wakefield is a prime example of this. The study by Green, Till, et al must be repeated by other researchers, validated, and shown to be clinically relevant before any trend can be seen in repeated studies. Failing to do that can lead to a public health disaster.

    • Sorry Johnny, we have seen this sort of bluff before, pretending that volume rules substance.

      Here is your first error, although I know it is really a case of intentional misdirection.

      “Note: Only studies on IQ which involved fluoride in water were included here. A Mexican study where fluoridation of water is not practiced, but instead salt is fluoridated, is purposely omitted. It is not an apples to apples comparison}”

      We all know that the Mexican study is very relevant because the urine fluoride levels were correlated to the negative effects. It is irrelevant whether the exposure came from water, salt, toothpaste or any other source. What is relevant as well is that the levels that Bashash measured were in the same range that Till measured in pregnant Canadian women in fluoridated communities and that these levels are about twice the average level found in non-fluoridated communities. I suspect you know all this and are being intentionally misleading just like the ADA was the day after Bashash published. If not, then you need to read the research until you understand it.

      I got down as far as your Broadbent reference before I stopped looking any further. The fact that you would even mention that piece of junk, invalidates anything else you might have to say. It is incredible how you, Broadbent, McLaren and many others have such a low opinion of the intelligence of the “lay” population that you think you can produce and reference garbage and get away with it. I don’t know how to describe it as anything other than sheer arrogance.

      You can pretend that fluoridation will never be overturned by the courts, but I watched the entire trial against the EPA and I would be willing to make a little side bet that, at a minimum, the EPA is going to have to advise pregnant and new mothers to avoid consuming fluoridated water and not use it for mixing formula. How about $200 US to FAN or your AFS, depending on who wins?

      • David Green – What exactly are your credentials for evaluating the studies you reference? So far the only thing you have done is repeat anti-F propaganda. If you actually understand the science behind the fluoridation studies. Go through the very specific criticisms from exerts world-wide which were quickly leveled at the 2019 Green, et al. fluoride/IQ study and explain why each of those very precise criticisms should not be taken seriously. Explain exactly what the level of association that was found in the Green study between IQ and fluoridation exposure at optimal levels (0.7 ppm) means. Explain exactly what other potential confounding factors were evaluated. Explain how a very weak possible association can mean anything relevant. Then there will be something to discuss.

      • David,

        It’s great that you emphasized in an earlier post that you asked about neurological studies. I happened to be providing dental cavity reductions that FFFF had asked for. I appreciate your validation that CWF indeed does reduce cavities and has volumes of literature to demonstrate that.


        You would do yourself a favor to read the Swedish study. There were tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people who were included in that study. The two Swedish economists were looking at economic outcomes from naturally occurring levels of fluoride in water from negligible all the way up to 1.5ppm. As you are certainly aware, Sweden does not fluoridate their water.

        These researchers found ZERO IQ changes in people who drank water that contained negilible levels of fluoride all the way up to the maximum level allowed in Sweden (like Canada) of 1.5ppm.

        Further, they found that the best dental health of the people in the study was at the level of that in CWF, 0.7ppm.

        Thirdly, they found increased economic outcomes from people with healthy teeth primarily from the most disadvantaged communities.

        David, stop cherry-picking what you want to respond to. Embrace all literature as we do. Look at it and look at reviews of it. Then, and only then, are you truly making an informed decision. It’s ok to have your own opinions. Just not your own facts.


        Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
        Pediatric Dentist
        Diplomate, American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
        Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
        President, American Fluoridation Society, a not-for-profit group of healthcare professionals who do not accept any personal income for our dissemination of evidence-based literature on water fluoridation

      • The Swedish study did not measure individual fluoride exposure, among other weaknesses. The quality of an observational study is not proportional to the number of people who are included. People who are scientifically literate don’t need to be told that.

    • Johnny,
      If my non commenting of the effects of fluoridation on decay means I validate fluoridation for that purpose, then I guess your non reply about the Mexico study means you admit to either being ignorant about it or intentionally deceptive in not including it. You also must agree that Broadbent, and McLaren put our junk. You seem to have the same problem as Juliet. You say things without thinking how they apply to you.

      As pointed out, the Swedish study uses a much weaker method than the evidence showing harm. I asked for something better. You are certainly going to have to come up with something that measures individual exposure.

      You also haven’t taken up my offer of a bet on the outcome of the EPA trial. You must not have much faith in your position, if you can’t even risk a measly 200 bucks.

      • Bye David. Have a nice day. Comment and denigrate away. I won’t be listening any longer.

  9. What an entertaining team!
    Little stevie spins “science” for grandpa johnny.
    Uncle kurt throws in a few curve balls to obfuscate the masses.
    Randy, the master of pseudoscience, chimes in occasionally, while the cantankerous juliet spews little related to common sense or knowledge.
    No wonder you folks don’t worry about the elephant in the room, and continue to bow down to your corporate and privileged masters.
    You make quite the team. it would be funny if you weren’t promoting such a toxic morass.

    • Dr. Dickson,

      I can and will remain respectful of your credentials in spite of your disregard for ours. That goes to character, on both of our parts.

      You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. I’m so glad that we got to meet during a break at last year’s Community and Protective Services Committee meeting on CWF. As you hang out with like-minded CWF opponents, you tried to convince me that health and scientific organizations were jumping off the “CWF Bandwagon, when are you?”. Then you proceeded to pull out the old story about the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) pulling its name from the American Dental Association’s list of “National and International Organizations That Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay”.

      You were shocked that not only did I know the backstory of why the NKF asked to have their name removed from the American Dental Association’s list, but I also had a copy of the lawsuit that was threatened by opponents of CWF that was written to the NKF. The threat of the lawsuit led to the the NKF asking to have their name removed instead of going through a legal issue.

      As I am certain that you are aware being a physician, the NKF does not oppose CWF. If you haven’t read it, here is the link:

      At this point, I respectfully request that you approach me with all due respect and stop personal attacks. Your appearance in Green Bay, Wisconsin and in Spokane, Washington to speak against CWF has had no effect on those city’s reliance on credible science in deciding to retain CWF and start CWF, respectfully. Your delegation didn’t change the wise decision of the Community and Protective Services Committee in their vote last year, and it will not make a difference in the states as well.

      I wish you well in your endeavors. CWF should not be one of them. Stick to your area of expertise. The world’s leading health and scientific organizations review the literature extensively. They continue to support the effectiveness and safety of CWF. If you are concerned about the one study, Green et al. that was published in JAMA Peds last year, please refer to the CADTH Review of it for their conclusions that the data does not support their conclusions. Reviews by this independent group for the Canadian government provides a very thorough investigation into Green’s publication:

      Warm regards,

      Dr. Johnny Johnson

    • Dr. Dickson, keeping with baseball vernacular, you must have trouble hitting the curve ball. Only one of seven the Spokane City Council members swallowed your propaganda. Your batting average in Spokane is .167. Hope you listen in tomorrow when the full GB City Council votes whether to retain fluoridation.

  10. Dr. Johnson – Thank you for providing a careful presentation of studies fluoridation opponent (FOs) seem unable to locate &/or understand. It is important to understand that, unlike FOs, fluoridation supporters examine all evidence and are able to identify study limitations.

    In stark contrast, David Green, Robert Dickson, F***F***F***F*** and other FOs present a remarkable absence of legitimate scientific evidence to support their claims. They have been unable to convince relevant science/health experts their opinions are valid. Instead, they select and adjust only “evidence” that can be presented to the public in an effort to support their case and bypass the scientific process of evaluation.

    It is far easier to utilize tactics that convince members of the public, most of whom don’t have relevant science &/or health training, that a study proves fluoridation is harmful than it is to convince a group of relevant scientists or health experts who really care about public health – and can actually understand the evidence.

    FOs actually seem to believe that leaders and members of all the science and health organizations in the world care nothing about their health, the health of their families or anyone else so they would completely ignore legitimate evidence that fluoridation was harmful and/or ineffective?

    The majority of science and health experts have not ignored the studies presented by FOs in their effort to support their opinions. The fact is, after careful evaluation, the studies have not provided any legitimate evidence of harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. The scientific evaluations of studies utilized by FOs are readily available – only those who don’t want the scientific evaluations revealed claim the studies are ignored.

    Adjusting a recent quote from Ian Silverii: “[FOs lie] so frequently and with such reckless abandon that [they have] managed to eat away at the very foundation of truth for [their] followers. We are not merely a country bitterly divided along political lines, but divided into competing versions of reality.”

    David Green makes the claim that “all the leading health authorities share a bias” and are afraid to accept any evidence that fluoridation is harmful because of the consequences. He fails completely to understand that the only way science can progress is by constant challenges to an established scientific consensus. If the new scientific evidence comes from studies that are relevant, reproducible, honestly and accurately designed, carried out and evaluated, the appropriate experts (not random members of the public) will assess the new data and modify the consensus – if the data supports a change.

    Robert Dickson also selectively ignores relevant evidence and seems to believe the majority of science and health experts in the world who support fluoridation care nothing about public health and have all been bought-off by the fertilizer industry. Of course his “follow the money” claim that is supposed to explain everything is made without a shred of specific evidence.

    F***F***F***F*** seems to have no science or health care training/experience and limits comments to personal opinions without a shred of actual scientific evidence.

    A challenge to the anti-F commenters – provide a specific, science-based response to each of the criticisms levied against the 2019 Green, et al. study referenced in my previous comment. I imagine the FOs will simply continue spreading opinions – without the protection of a face mask.

    Perhaps the FOs in this comment section can explain why the World Health Organization and over 100 other science and health organizations worldwide support fluoridation. I have seen no explanation from FOs except various ridiculous conspiracy theories like those noted above.

    Perhaps the FOs in this comment section can explain why there are no well-respected science or health organizations in the world that support the unsupported anti-F opinions you have made. I have seen no rational explanation.

    Perhaps the FOs in this comment section can provide a legitimate scientific reference that delivers reasonable proof that drinking optimally fluoridated water actually causes harm. The “evidence” provided by FOs not only has severe and obvious limitations, it only provides, at best, a possible slight association between exposure to fluoride ions (over twice the optimal level) and any harm. The anti-F researchers had to dig deeply into the data and manipulate it to find even the slight associations. An association, even if proven, does not mean a cause and effect relationship, and the studies all severely lack consideration of other more rational causes for the observations.

  11. I am furious that we, the public at large, have to tolerate this overreach of government whether we like, want, or need it, or not, at the enormous cost of $30 million at a time of depression, yes, a depression, in Calgary! And, this comes from a staunchly PRO-masker, not one of those launching a constant, ludicrous cacophony about government “overreach” – but in this case, it sure is. All these pompous, so-called experts are piping in with nefarious claims and fake news rather than listening to what the Harvard study clearly indicated – this stuff is harmful to people! Case closed! Those of us who go to extreme pains to take care of our teeth and visit the dentist regularly should not have to endure this assault on our collective bodies by the elected officials. I taught my kids good oral habits. Parents who are derelict of teaching their children good oral hygiene should shoulder the responsibility and blame – IN THIS CASE, I am not my brother’s keeper! Why should the entire community have to suffer for the good of a few? Makes me want to sell and move out of this oppressive environment to the country!

    • I am sure you realize by now that the push to return fluoridation in Calgary isn’t about anything other than the promoters not wanting to admit that the evidence is now contrary to their position.

      Common sense should have been enough to know that a non-essential element that is excluded from breast milk, and which accumulates in the body, was bound to cause some problems.

  12. The cost that you’ve mentioned is over 20 years, and this will NOT increase water rates for local residents according to the Calgary water department spokesperson. Also, small amounts of fluoride are already in the Calgary, but not enough to help prevent cavities.

    As a dentist who was educated in the fluoridated city of Chicago and spent an additional 4 years in this city while my wife completed her medical school studies, I had treated patients from every demographic and SES. Yes, even in a fluoridated city, low income residents get the most cavities.

    I was somewhat ambivalent about the effectiveness of fluoridation when my wife and I relocated to non-fluoridated Portland, OR. I immediately had a “Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore” epiphany. Across every demographic I saw a completely different picture of the state of oral health of native-born Oregonians. More of everything: in adults, more fillings, more cavities, especially, root surface cavities, and in children, a much higher degree of rampant cavities which I had to take many to the operating room to treat their oral disease.

    In 1999 I did my first volunteer dental care on a mobile dental clinic, that was treating children from families without dental insurance. A 9 year old patient presented with a very painful, swollen, abscessed 6 year permanent molar. When I pushed on the swelling he pulled his face away from my finger. I asked him, “How long has this tooth been hurting you?” His answer, “I can’t remember”. Due to the fact that root canals were not an option, I had to pull this permanent tooth.

    On my drive home I couldn’t get you boy out of my mind: 1) It wasn’t the typical patient that I saw in my own practice; 2) although I can be judgmental on adults that make “bad choices”, this young boy didn’t choose who his parents are or what SES he was born into; and 3) what was the figurative brick between my eyes was that my own 2 daughter, with a father who is a pediatrician and a mother, a pediatrician, would never, ever have to experience this kind of dental pain or suffering.

    This was a defining moment in my professional career and began my passion for public health interventions which has continued to this day. Fluoridation is such an intervention, and I have also preached to my patients, especially, my children and teenagers to reduce their consumption of soda pop.

    We agree on wearing masks during the pandemic, and I’m amazed that the pushback by members of the public to any of the public health interventions to flatten the curve. The primary argument is government overreach, and even during the most recent surge, I continue to hear the same arguments.

    I wish that you could see what I’ve seen over my 44 year career as a dentist. You might have a differernt perspective. Thank you for reading my post.

  13. That’s an interesting story Kurt. It’s always good to see where one’s biases originate. Yours seem to come in a similar form to what other dentists often refer to; anecdotal evidence from what they see in their practice.

    The problem with your conclusion is that proponents of fluoridation claim about a 25% reduction in decay. That is the saving of one tooth every 40 years. Not enough to be noticeable on the scale you suggest. I think you are proving why we don’t rely on that sort of testimony.

    The part about no increase in water bills is just marketing, especially when the mayor also says that the costs wouldn’t come from a tax increase. They must really think the people are stupid. There are only two other places it could come from; borrowing or an “angel donor”.

    Why doesn’t the AFS write them a big cheque, now and every year going forward, instead of wasting money on PR guys like Matt Jacob who only know, and only wish to know, what you tell them ?

  14. David, your response demonstrates your complete ignorance on the cavity reduction from fluoridation. Indeed, my anecdotal observations are backed up by research: Here are just a few studies on only root cavities, which is an important reason for tooth loss in the elderly.

    J Am Dent Assoc. 1990 Feb;120(2):143-9.
    Adult root caries survey of two similar communities with contrasting natural water fluoride levels.
    Stamm JW, Banting DW, Imrey PB.
    University of North Carolina, School of Denistry, Chapel Hill 27599-7455.

    J Appl Oral Sci. 2008 Jan-Feb;16(1):70-4.
    Root caries in areas with and without fluoridated water at the Southeast region of São Paulo State, Brazil.
    Rihs LB, de Sousa Mda L, Wada RS.
    Department of Community Dentistry, Dental School of Piracicaba, State University of Campinas, SP, Brazil.

    Am J Dent. 1994 Oct;7(5):271-4.
    Fluoride, remineralization and root caries.
    Featherstone JD.
    Department of Oral Sciences, Eastman Dental Center, Rochester, New York.

    J Dent Res. 1986 Sep;65(9):1154-8.
    Root caries in an optimally fluoridated and a high-fluoride community.
    Burt BA, Ismail AI, Eklund SA.

    Public Health Dent. 1989 Summer;49(3):138-41.
    Effect of residence in a fluoridated community on the incidence of coronal and root caries in an older adult population.
    Hunt RJ, Eldredge JB, Beck JD.
    Department of Dental Hygiene College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242.

    Your regurgitation of the FAN/only 1/2 of a tooth savings is total misrepresentation of the Brunelle and Carlos study: Let’s take a close look:

    Analysis of Brunelle and Carlos Study

    •The opponents to water fluoridation claim that the largest study on cavity rates by the NIDR (now the NIDCR) shows no statistical difference in cavity rate between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.

    •The study: “Recent Trends in Dental Caries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation”, Brunelle & Carlos, J. of Dental Res., Feb. 1990, Vol. 69, special issue

    •The study analysed data from the first National Health and Nutrition Exam Survey (NHANES I – 1979-80) to NHANES II (1987), comparing the mean Decayed, Missing, Filled Surfaces (DMFS) of permanent teeth ONLY in school-age children, 5-17. Very few 5 y/o have permanent teeth, and the 1st permanent teeth begin to erupt at age 6 and, not counting 3rd molars (wisdom teeth) continue to erupt up to ages 12-13. It did NOT analyze the cavity reduction on baby teeth.

    •Result: Children who were continuously exposed to water fluoridation: There was an 18% reduction in DMFS. When some of the “background” effect of topical fluoride was controlled, the DMFS difference rose to 25%.

    •However, the opponents ignore the most important part of the study: The Halo Effect of water fluoridation.
    1) For example, a small non-fluoridated town in Illinois (98.5% of Illinois residents on a fluoridated water systems), which is surrounded by fluoridated communities would get most of its processed foods and beverages from fluoridated communities like Chicago.
    2) Therefore, the citizens of this non-fluoridated town in a highly-fluoridated region in the U.S. would be getting more fluoride in their diet than citizens in a non-fluoridated community in Oregon.
    3) Oregon, which is located in region, Western 7, is the least fluoridated region in the U.S. @ 19% (in 1990).
    4) In Western 7, the DMFS difference is 61% between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities—a significant statistical difference.

    •The study limitations do not analyze the cumulative effect of fluoridation over a lifetime where the DMFS difference continues to increase (see Delta Dental graph).

    David, are there cherry orchards in northern Ontario? I ask, because if you can pick cherries as well as you can cherry-pick scientific studies, you could probably make a living instead of selling BPA-laced bottled water.

  15. Come back when you have some research that looked for neurologic harm but couldn’t find any. It better not be just one study with worse limitations than those we have showing harm.

    • David Green – So, you simply ignore specific scientific references that support fluoridation provided by two professionals, Johnny Johnson and Kurt Ferre – not surprising.

      In fact, the “research that looked for neurologic harm but couldn’t find any” is obvious. Recent studies like 2019 Green, et el., 2017 Bashash, et al., 2018-2020 Till,, et al. are excellent examples. The Green, et al. study, for example, received immediate criticism from science and health experts worldwide that exposed the serious limitations and apparent bias of the study. If you believe the Green study proved CWF causes neurologic harm, provide a specific quote in context. All I have found is the conclusion of a possible weak “association” – that’s not proof of anything. If you believe the Green study is reliable evidence, provide specific explanations of why each of the serious criticisms referenced below should be ignored. Then there will be something to talk about.

      In fact, the revised draft NTP monograph: Systematic Review of Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects (after reviewing the studies referenced above and others) concluded, “When focusing on findings from studies with exposures in ranges typically found in drinking water in the United States (0.7 mg/L for optimally fluoridated community water systems) that can be evaluated for dose response, effects on cognitive neurodevelopment are inconsistent, and therefore unclear.” Also the NPT review ignored other studies that found no neurologic harm. Explain your understanding of the terms “inconsistent” and “unclear”.

      Explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of respected science and health organizations in the world, like the WHO, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Canadian Public Health Association. all support community water fluoridation, and none state that fluoridation causes neurologic (or any other) harm.

      Also, explain the fact that no respected science or health organizations in the world support the anti-fluoridation opinions. Explain why the anti-F opinions are only supported by a few outlier science/health “experts”, a handful of alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, vocal activist groups like FAN and the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].

      I have requested you explain those facts many times – without any rational response.

  16. Fluoride on your teeth – yes (at the dentist) and in toothpaste. Fluoride in your stomach, no thanks.

    Any credible scientist want to weigh in on how the body actually processes and REMOVES a metal toxin like fluoride?? Feel free to reply.

    • Darren, Since Calgary’s public water supply comes from the Bow River and has a natural fluoride concentration of 0.3 ppm, there is already fluoride in your stomach. BTW: fluorine, Atomic number 9, 13th most common element on the Earth, is NOT a metal.

      Lastly, basic rule of toxicity: “The dose makes the poison”. Go purchase 2-3 gallons of bottled water without fluoride and drink it up all in, let’s say 20-30 minutes. You will have just committed suicide, because even water can be toxic.

  17. Who is really going to benefit from this ridiculous spending? The company which provides the fluoride of course. I’d also be interested to know how many councillors have stocks in said company and/or ties to them. This $30 million would be better spent on helping feed the homeless, or put back into the public school system. But blind greed may win unless we put a stop to it.

    • First, CR, you are clueless about public health, and its goal to improve the health of all it citizenry. The investment is over 20 years. How much does Calgary spend on their water system annually, and what percentage is this compared to the City budget for 1.6 million residents? No one is on the take with the companies that supply the fluoride additives. If you have any evidence, prove it !!

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Calgary votes to add fluoride question to October election ballot - LiveWire Calgary

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.