• Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity (Choi et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012): a recent Harvard meta-analysis of 27 studies to investigate the effects of increased fluoride exposure and delayed neurobehavioral development.
  • Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population (Danielson, C. et al. JAMA. 1992 Aug 12; 268(6):746-8.): the objective was to test the effect of water fluoridated to 1 ppm on the incidence of hip fractures in the elderly and concluded: “We found a small but significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm, suggesting that low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.”

“Fluoride damages bones – Since 1990, five major epidemiological studies from three countries – United States, the United Kingdom and France – showing a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated regions…”

  • Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity (Chachra et al, J Dent Res 89(11):1219-1223, 2010). Bone density increases with fluoride exposure, but this denser bone is not as strong as, and differs in structure from, normal bone.

“In conclusion, this study showed that co-exposure to fluoride increases lead concentrations in the blood and in calcified tissues in animals exposed to lead from the beginning of gestation. These findings suggest that a biological effect not recognized so far may underlie the epidemiological association between increased BPb levels in children and water fluoridation.”

  • The Health Effects Database, published by the Fluoride Action Network includes detailed summaries and exhaustive references for over 80 aspects of fluoride toxicity. It’s a gold mine of information for anyone interested in the science.


Sheldon Thomas, author of this report, is the founder of Clear Water Legacy ( and a former Manager of Water Distribution for the City of Hamilton, Ontario.

“Where is the carved-in-stone proof that fluoride exposure will not scar a child even before the drawing of first breath?” This well-referenced document answers that question with a resounding, “Nowhere!”

  • York Review (2000) – A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation The York Review was a review of existing research done by the University of York in England and paid for by the Department of Health. Its goal was to determine the effects of water fluoridation on the population by. This 110 page report is being touted by proponents as giving fluoridation a clean bill of health.


    • Reviewed 3,231 studies – rejected 93% or 3,017studies – used 214 studies.
    • Of these studies selected, the vast majority were graded as Level C “poor quality with a risk of bias.” None reached the highest quality (Level A).
    • Excludes ALL animal and toxicological studies.
    • Ignored the question of Total Fluoride Intake from all sources.
    • At a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm, the prevalence of fluorosis was estimated to be 48%


quoting – “The scope of this review is not broad enough to answer independently the question ‘should fluoridation be undertaken on a broad scale in the UK’? Important considerations outside the bounds of this review include the cost-effectiveness of a fluoridation program, total fluoride exposure from environmental and non-environmental sources other than water, environmental and ecological effects of artificial fluoridation and the ethical and legal debates.”

In summary, the York review fits well in a history of attempts to downgrade possible risks associated with exposure to fluoride. Selection of data, inconsistent use of exclusion criteria, disregard of experimental studies which could have offered a clue to proper evaluation of epidemiological investigations render the York review useless. Either the York team was not really interested (to say the least), aimed at supporting proponent’s ́views, or was hopelessly lost in its task.


Sheldon Thomas, author of this report, is the founder of Clear Water Legacy ( and a former Manager of Water Distribution for the City of Hamilton, Ontario.

This well-referenced document exposes the astounding lack of scientific evidence that would prove fluoridation chemicals are safe.