Dartmouth professor, Roger Masters,
criticizes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for
conspicuously excluding the name of the fluoride chemicals used to
fluoridate most of America’s drinking water, while the CDC carefully
details the various fluoride compounds contained in all other dental
products mentioned in their recent report “Recommendations for Using
Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States.”
The reason might be that the silicofluorides, used by most
fluoridating communities, have never been safety tested in humans or
animals. Masters’ recent studies show how silicofluorides can be
harming our children -
Controversy over "fluoridating"
public water supplies has been on the agenda for half a century.
Although the specific chemicals in use raise genuine scientific
questions, most proponents (from the Surgeon General to the American
Dental Association) and critics talk about "fluoridation" without
discussing the difference between sodium fluoride, familiar in
toothpaste, and fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride (jointly
called "silicofluorides"), which are the main chemicals used for water
fluoridation in the U.S.
Does the difference matter? If so, why does a long-delayed CDC
(Centers for Disease Control) report on fluoride treatments carefully
list the chemicals in fluoridated gels and mouthwash, but refuse to
mention the chemicals used in our water supplies?
Water fluoridation was begun in the mid 1940's as a ten year
experiment to see if drinking-water with sodium fluoride would reduce
tooth decay. All tests of safety were conducted on sodium fluoride. In
1950, however, the Public Health Service authorized the substitution
of silicofluorides, even though they had never been tested for effects
on health and behavior. Today, over 90% of fluoridated water
(delivered to over 140 million Americans) is treated with one of the
The switch to silicofluorides about 50 years ago may have been an
enormous mistake. Three years of intensive research, supported by the
Earhart Foundation, has indicated that
1. Silicofluorides have never been tested for health and safety,
and the EPA admits it now has no information on the effects of
"chronic exposure" to water treated with them.
2. Silicofluorides do not dissociate completely after injection in
public water supplies and their biochemical effects are not benign.
3. Extensive data analysis (based on three large samples of over
400,000 children) reveals that where silicofluorides are in use,
children absorb significantly higher levels of lead from environmental
sources (such as old housing).
4. Additional studies show that where silicofluorides are in use,
there are higher rates of behavioral problems that have been linked to
lead toxicity (including hyperactivity and other learning
disabilities, substance abuse, and violent crime). These findings are
based on a "cumulative loading" model of environmental risk factors
(for the foregoing see
The CDC and EPA have constantly refused to support objective
scientific testing and have apparently engaged in a cover-up of data
suggesting toxicity and harmful effects due to silicofluorides.
The pattern evident in prior reports and funding decisions is
especially noteworthy in the long-delayed CDC report on
"Recommendations for Using Fluroide to Prevent and Control Dental
Caries in the United States" (MMWR, Aug. 17, 2001, 50 [RR14] 1-42).
This document is silent on the different health and behavioral effects
of silicofluoride treated water compared to that treated with sodium
Although the report identifies the specific chemicals used to add
fluoride to mouth rinse (sodium fluoride), dietary fluoride
supplements (sodium fluoride), gel and foam (acidulated phosphate
fluoride, sodium fluoride, or stannous fluoride) or fluoride varnish
(sodium fluoride or difluorsilane), there is no mention of the
specific chemicals used to fluoridate public water supplies or
toothpaste (the two principal sources of fluoride for caries control).
Given the foregoing information, informed observers suspect that
the CDC intentionally omitted information to "cover up" the fact that
silicofluorides, although used in over 90 percent of water
fluoridation in the U.S., have never been subjected to the tests
conducted on sodium fluoride or other health products and medicines.
Some CDC personnel know the research questioning silicofluorides, and
in one case attended a presentation of research on their dangers.
It is time to discuss openly a toxin that could well contribute to
higher rates of hyperactivity (ADHD) and crime in many American
Why should we allow bureaucrats to block discussion of the
differences between either fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride
(toxic byproducts of manufacturing phosphate fertilizer as well as
nuclear fuel and warheads) and sodium fluoride? Since silicofluorides
have never been tested, shouldn't there be a moratorium on their use
until their safety has been proven?
If you live in Manhattan, you can choose non-fluoridated toothpaste
but not non-fluoridated tap water.
It's time for Congressional hearings on an issue that could help
our children at virtually no cost (except for lost revenue to some
chemical corporations and embarrassment to the CDC, EPA, and American
For more information about Roger Masters and his work: