Great Debate: Is fluoride worth it?


Editor’s Note: A recently submitted Letter to the Editor contained concerns and allegations that prompted our Editorial Board to research an option for providing “both sides of the story.” The nature of the concerns led us to believe that it was our duty to present opposing viewpoints, and allow our readers to determine their own course of action.


Is Lockhart (literally) poisoning the water?

To the Editor:

Saturday night was the annual Progressive Club dinner at the Lion’s Club. Wonderful food and fellowship. Gospel singing and one of the most edifying, encouraging speeches I have ever been blessed to hear in my life from Pastor Ty McDonald.

Pity those who did not attend!

As I sat there, chatting and having a good time with friends and acquaintances, I noticed there were many children attending — some teens, some toddlers. I wondered, how many of their parents avoid fluoride in these precious children’s diets and environments?

Blacks have two alleles (genes) and Hispanics have one allele that makes them more vulnerable to the effects of fluoride. White people do not have these genetic anomalies. Yes, I will go “there.” Fluoridation is a racial issue.

Side effects of fluoride include stunted mental growth, motor dysfunctions and learning disabilities. Children exposed to fluoride have lower IQ, according to a Harvard study.

The authors stated, “The results sup­port the pos­si­bil­ity of an adverse effect of high flu­o­ride expo­sure on children’s neu­rode­vel­op­ment.”

More than 23 other human studies and 100-plus animal studies have linked fluoride to brain damage.

Lockhart adds fluoride to the municipal water. This is unnecessary and unhealthy for all citizens, but especially for the 13.3 percent Blacks and 47.4 percent Hispanics of our population. That’s over 60 percent of the entire city, let alone those in the county, who are being adversely affected by fluoride.

The evidence is clear and cannot be ignored. The solution is also within our ability: stop adding fluoride to Lockhart’s water!

Will you stand with me for the children of our community and work to educate parents, politicians, educators, and all leaders so that this genocide can stop now?

Donna Voetee



Lockhart’s water is perfectly safe

To the Editor:

The American Dental Association and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention continue to recommend the importance of Fluoride in prevention of dental disease.

They have recently recommended that daily intake be reduced because of the other intake of dentrifices such as toothpastes, mouthwashes and varnishes.

Everyone is advised to research their own local water floride content. Some areas such as Niederwald-Uhland area contain way too much flouride naturally and can result in deleterious cosmetic effects.

The extreme effects described in the letter to the editor have not been documented in a scientific setting as such.

As always, people need to make their own decisions in regards to their health and that of their families.

I strongly support the fluoridation of our local water supply for your health and will see that levels are updated to current recommendations.


Lew White DDS

Mayor, City of Lockhart




  1. Rae Nadler-Olenick 22 February, 2013 at 18:58 Reply

    The weak response of Lockhart Mayor White, DDS, to the well-informed opinion piece of Donna Voetee is typical of the institutional supporters of community fluoridation. He first invokes his gods, the ADA and CDC; next, tacitly concedes that today’s gross intake of multiple fluoride-laden dentrifices has hopelessly confounded the actual dose each person receives; next, points the finger at other locales that have higher levels of (less toxic) natural fluoride; and finally denies that any of the “extreme” effects Voetee’s letter mentions “have been documented in a scientific setting, as such.” Finally the clincher: “As always, people need to make their own decisions in regards to their health and that of their families.” That would be easier to do if they weren’t forced to drink fluoridated water or expend money, time and effort in order to dodge it.

  2. Maureen Jones 22 February, 2013 at 23:47 Reply

    Fluoride is great for both separating and enriching uranium isotope 235.

    An 8 page summary/story, commissioned by the Christian Science Monitor in 1997, of the Why (Litigation) and Who (Dupont, the FDA and the Manhattan Project Military) of fluoridation can be found by searching: Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb.

    1) Why fluoridation began – Search: Deepwater New Jersey Lawsuit.
    Summary: Here are the 18 declassified documents of spring 1946 showing that fluoridation was launched to protect the military from further liability than the 12 lawsuits they had at the time. At the Manhattan Project military’s urging, the FDA did not embargo the Deepwater, NJ (Dupont) fluoride-poisoned 1946 peach crop. The military considered it a national security issue. To this day, the FDA has never approved any fluoride compound used for fluoridation i.e., people-treatment rather than water treatment. (Bone-embrittling fluoride is 87% cumulative in children and 50% cumulative in adults.)

    2) How fluoridation is perpetuated: The documentation from dental journals below shows that fluoridation does not help the poor/Head Start children at all. Preschool-children is the only age group where, in 2004, the CDC found an increase in tooth decay.

    Maureen Jones
    Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (Archivist for 18 years)
    San Jose, CA
    408 297-8487

    Baby Bottle Tooth Decay aka Early Childhood Caries:

    After decades of promoting water fluoridation for the sake of disadvantaged children, the University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry announced on December 18, 2008 they had received a record $24.4 million from the National Institutes of Health to fight early childhood caries, also known as “baby bottle tooth decay” or “nursing caries”.

    Published dental literature has long noted fluoridation’s failure:

    1) Auge, K. Denver Post Medical Writer. Doctors donate services to restore little girl’s smile. The Denver Post, April 13, 2004. (Note: Denver, CO has been fluoridated since 1954.)
    “Sippy cups are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents’ propensity to let toddlers bed down with the cups, filled with juice or milk. The result is a sort of sleep-over party for mouth bacteria,” said pediatric dentist Dr. Barbara Hymer as she applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6-year-old with decayed upper teeth. Dr. Brad Smith, a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his practice treats up to 300 cases a year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries. Last year, Children’s Hospital did 2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed from the condition, Smith said, and it is especially pervasive among children in poor families.

    2) Shiboski CH et al. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter 2003.
    Among 2,520 children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping milk/sweet substance was among Latinos/Hispanics (72% among Head Start and 65% among non-HS) and HS Asians (56%). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant decay rates respectively; Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water.

    3) California Department of Health Services, Maternal and Child Health Branch, 1995; Our Children’s Teeth: Beyond Brushing and Braces.
    33% of Head Start children and 13% of non-Head Start preschool children had Early Childhood Caries/Baby Bottle Tooth Decay (BBTD).  
    1) In non-fluoridated urban regions, 40% of Hispanic preschool children had BBTD.
    2) In fluoridated urban regions, 45% of Asian Head Start preschool children had BBTD.

    4) Allukian, M. Symposium Oral Disease: The Neglected Epidemic – What Can Be Done? Introduction:  Journal of Public Health Dentistry,  Vol. 53, No 1, Winter 1993. “Oral Disease is still a neglected epidemic in our country, despite improvements in oral health due to fluoridation, other forms of fluorides, and better access to dental care. Consider the following: 50 percent of Head Start children have had baby bottle tooth decay.” (Bullet #5 of 8.)

    5) Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children.  Public Health Reports; 107: 167-73, 1992.
    By either of the two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three of the four maxillary incisors, the rate for 5-year-olds was significantly higher than for 3-year-olds.  Children attending centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the total sample or other variables.

    6) Kelly M et al. The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American Populations.  J Pub Health Dent; 47:94-97, 1987.
    The prevalence of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from 17 to 85 percent with a mean of 53%. The surveyed communities had a mixture of fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking water sources.  Regardless of water fluoridation, the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites surveyed.

    7) Watson MR et al. Caries conditions among 2-5-year-old immigrant Latino children related to parents’ oral health knowledge, opinions and practices.  Community Dent Oral Epid; 27: 8-15, 1999.
    The finding of 47% of the children having experienced dental caries in their primary teeth does not differ greatly with other studies of low socioeconomic status and racial ethnic groups.  (Washington D.C. has been fluoridated since 1952.)

    8) Weinstein P et al. Mexican-American parents with children at risk for baby bottle tooth decay: Pilot study at a migrant farmworkers clinic.  J Dent for Children; 376-83, Sept-Oct, 1992.
    Overall, 37 of the 125 children (29.6 percent) were found to have BBTD.  Compliance in putting fluoride drops in bottle once a day was identical between BBTD and non BBTD groups.

    9) Bruerd B et al. Preventing Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: Eight-Year Results.  Public Health Reports: 111; 63-65, 1996.
    In 1986, a program to prevent BBTD was implemented in 12 Head Start centers in 10 states. In three years BBTD decreased from 57% to 43%.  Funding was discontinued in 1990.

    10) Von Burg MM et al. Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern for All Mothers.  Pediatric Nursing; 21:515-519, 1995.
    “Data from Head Start surveys show the prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay is about three times the national average among poor urban children, even in communities with a fluoridated water supply.”

    11) Blen M et al. Dental caries in children under age three attending a university clinic.  Pediatric Dentistry; 21:261-64, 1999.
    Of 369 children who attended the University of Texas-Houston Health Center  (Houston is fluoridated), 56% between 2 and 3 years old had decay. Among the 3 year olds, 46% had more than three decayed teeth.  The children without decay were weaned from the bottle at an average age of 10 months. Those with severe decay were weaned at 16.9 months.

    12) Kong D. City to launch battle against dental ‘crisis’.  Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 1999.
    18% of children 4 years old and younger seen in the pediatric program at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby bottle tooth decay. Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child. Boston was fluoridated in 1978.

    13) Thakib AA et al. Primary incisor decay before age 4 as a risk factor for future dental caries.  Pediatric Dentistry; 19:37-41, 1997.
    In summary, initial primary incisor caries is a risk factor for developing future carious, extracted, and restored teeth.

    14) Duperon DF. Early Childhood Caries: A Continuing Dilemma.  CA Dent Assoc J; 23: 15-25, 1995.
    The primary precipitating factor for this 100 year old problem is prolonged use of the bottle or breast past 9 to 12 months of age. North American Indians have reported an incidence of 53 percent, Inuit (Eskimo) children have shown a 60%-65% incidence and Mexican American migrant farm workers, 30%.


    “Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures (grooves), mainly on the chewing surfaces of the back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay in U.S. children in 1986-87.”
    Selected Findings and Recommendations from the 1993/94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment.

    “Because the surface-specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the remaining decay is found in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of children’s teeth; those surfaces that are not as affected by the protective benefit of fluoride.”
    Letter, August 8, 2000, from Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., CDC Atlanta GA.

    “Nearly 90 percent of cavities in school children occur in the surfaces of teeth with vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective.”
    Facts From National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall, MN, 5/92.


    Fluoridation has historically been “sold” to politicians and civic leaders by using photos of rampant Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup Tooth Decay (BBTD), a highly visible decay of the upper front teeth. The cause of the decay is high levels of strep mutan bacteria. Fluoridated water at 1 ppm does not kill this bacteria that, 1) colonize on tooth surfaces, 2) thrive and multiply on sugars, and 3) pass their acidic waste onto the dental enamel causing the damage we call tooth decay.

    50 percent of U.S. Head Start children have Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup tooth decay from high levels of strep mutans bacteria. A steady source of sugar is supplied to the bacteria by sipping fluids rather than drinking fluids from a cup. The bacteria’s acidic waste first ravages the primary teeth and then continues on to decay the permanent teeth.

    In January 2000, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Senior Risk Assessment Scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis, reviewed the 1993-94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment for the City of Escondido (, #17 Effectiveness) and stated in her critique:

    1) For preschool children, … any evaluation of the effectiveness of various measures (fluoridation) must control for the occurrence of BBTD and,

    2) Any study of the effectiveness of a particular measure (fluoridation) in preventing dental caries must control for the presence of dental sealants, or the results will be meaningless. and,

    3) In addition, if children with BBTD are thought to be more prone to developing caries in permanent teeth, then history of BBTD vs. caries incidence should be examined for both preschool and elementary children.

    The dental literature is clear that elementary school children with a history of BBTD are indeed more prone to decay in permanent teeth. Therefore, controlling or adjusting for history of BBTD in elementary school children should be the norm but is never done! By not adjusting for BBTD history and sealants, dental studies of elementary school children can claim a (false) fluoridation benefit!

    Maureen Jones
    Citizens for Safe Drinking Water –
    1205 Sierra Ave.
    San Jose, CA 95126
    408 297-8487

  3. Argon 28 February, 2013 at 17:23 Reply

    It is really very simple: countless studies have shown that flouride is very bad and causes many problems. GET RID OF IT.

  4. Cynthia Fischer 3 March, 2013 at 23:37 Reply

    Oh Please!! Water and a toothbrush is all you need to brush with until a child is old enough to spit! It is only bad if a child is ingesting toothpaste (because now days it taste so good) while also, having the accurate amount of fluoride in the water. Ingesting toothpaste w/ fluoride while the adult teeth are still developing will cause a discoloration of the teeth called “Fluorosis.” If you choose to use toothpaste on a child’s toothbrush, only use a bebe size amount for the flavor. Then have the child rinse if possible. Cynthia, Dental Assist w/ more than 25 years experience

    • Krystal 26 January, 2016 at 21:07 Reply

      Oh please?! Being a dental assistant makes you an expert??? You are told what to believe by your job. What scientific evidence do you have to support your simple belief? Instead of being a blind follower, try doing some research of your own! You may be surprised what you find once you open up to the possibility. The fluoride added to our water systems is not the natural occurring, but a bi-product of fertilizer, a waste that needed getting rid of. It is never ok to mass medicate a population. Everyone is different, such as latinos and african americans who have alleles that result in 2 and 3 times the absorption rate of fluoride than that of a caucasian! And putting it in water sold for baby formula…I guess you thing that is fine and safe as well??? Do your research!

Leave a reply

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