5 Good Reasons You Should Avoid Fluoridated Water

5 Good Reasons You Should Avoid Fluoridated Water | water-drop-fluoride | Fluoride Sleuth Journal Special Interests Toxins

Fluoride was originally added to water supplies back around the time of the end of World War II, but this well-intended practice to improve dental health is still around today, and more and more people are recognizing the possible dangers. Certainly, a lot of people out there will tell you there’s no problem with fluoridated water, but these people are simply repeating outdated studies that are not backed by current evidence.

Why You Need to Avoid Fluoridated Water

Drinking fluoridated water may seem like a good idea, but it’s actually anything but. Not only can consuming fluoride harms the brain, it also has severe impacts on hormonal health. Here are 5 reasons to avoid it like the Plague.

  1. Fluoridated Water Can Damage the Thyroid

A recent study reported water fluoridation in England is linked to a 30 percent increase in the rate of underactive thyroids; still, other reports suggest 2 to 5 mg of fluoride over months can actually lower thyroid function. [1] [2] Close to 70 percent of the U.S. water supply is fluoridated. But should we really be putting an endocrine disruptor like fluoride into the water we drink?

  1. Fluoridated Water is Linked to ADHD

With a more than 50 percent increase in the past 10 years, ADHD is becoming a big problem in the U.S. [3] So what’s causing this increase? Well, if you live in a state with fluoridated water, that could even be a factor. For the first time, scientists have “found that states with a higher portion of artificially fluoridated water had a higher prevalence of ADHD,” and it seems like more than just a fluke: the trend even “held up across six different years examined.” [4]

     3. Fluoridated Water Lowers IQ

New data suggests fluoridated water could even lead to brain damage and lower IQs in kids. [5] As a neurotoxin, fluoride could even cause damage equivalent to that from a traumatic brain injury. Some experts believe that adding fluoride to the water supply is not only reckless, it’s immoral. Unfortunately, many of the individuals in control of fluoridating water are unaware of the hazards of the toxin. [6]

  1. Fluoridated Water Can Cause Fluorosis

Too much fluoride can affect teeth and bones. The World Health Organization (WHO) says ”fluoride levels above 1.5 mg per litre cause pitting of tooth enamel and deposits in bones. Levels above 10 mg per litre cause the crippling skeletal fluorosis.” [7] In the U.S., we’re often exposed to levels in the 2 to 5 mg range, but in India, fluorosis is such a concern that, in 2008, the government had to create a national health plan to combat excess fluoride in the water. With the way the U.S. loves its fluoride, why couldn’t that happen here?

  1. Fluoridated Water Damages the Pineal Gland

Fluoride damage to bones and teeth isn’t the only issue; the toxin can also build up in very high levels in the pineal gland. [8] Located in the brain, this gland is responsible for melatonin synthesis and production. While it’s not known just how fluoride can damage the gland, one thing melatonin controls is the start of puberty in girls, and some evidence suggests the build-up could be a factor in early onset.

Avoid Fluoride at All Costs

Fluoridated water is causing all sorts of damage to our bodies—maybe even more than we know. Sure, there’s an old argument that taking the fluoride out of the water supply would significantly damage oral health; but, in the 21st century, is that still the best argument?

What do you think? Do the potential risks outweigh the benefits of fluoridation? Tell us what you think in the comments.


  1. Peckham, S et al. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.
  2. Galletti P, et. al. Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology. 18 (10).
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Key Findings: Trends in the Parent-Report of Health Care Provider-Diagnosis and Medication Treatment for ADHD: United States, 2003—2011. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  4. Malin, A. J. & Till, C. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association. Environmental Health. 14 (7).
  5. Landrigan, P. & Grandjean, P. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurology. 13 (3).
  6. Franklin, J. Fluoride branded ‘brain danger’ to our children. Southern Daily Echo.
  7. Lennon, M. A. et al. Rolling Revision of the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. World Health Organization.
  8. Luke, J. THE EFFECT OF FLUORIDE ON THE PHYSIOLOGY OF THE PINEAL GLAND. School of Biological Sciences, University of Surrey.


Submit your review

Create your own review

Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!

About The Author

Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

    Related posts

    • Steven Slott

      So, let’s look at the actual facts in regard to these “5 Good Reasons”

      1. Article: “Certainly, a lot of people out there will tell you there’s no problem with fluoridated water, but these people are simply repeating outdated studies that are not backed by current evidence.”

      There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated. This is a fact. In the absence of valid evidence that there is a problem, it is not credible to demand proof that there is not.

      It is ironic that while this author claims that support for water fluoridation is based on “outdated studies that are not backed by current evidence” he presents in his references, a study from 1958, and studies whose conclusions have no support in the current peer-reviewed science.

      In actuality, support for water fluoridation is based on the most current, up-to-date scientific evidence available. I will gladly cite as much as anyone would reasonably care to read.

      2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on the thyroid from optimally fluoridated. The Peckham study on which the author bases his erroneous claim about the thyroid has been widely discredited in the scientific literature for its poor methodology, inadequate control for confounders, and reaching a conclusion not supported by the peer-reviewed science.

      The following is but one of numerous critiques of Peckham’s study. I will gladly provide more should anyone so desire.

      “In summary, this study [Peckham] is an ecologic one that has several significant flaws, making it almost meaningless with regard to assessing any possible association between water fluoridation and hypothyroidism. As such, this study provides no evidence of a causal relationship between water fluoride concentration and hypothyroidism.”

      —No Evidence Supports the Claim That Water Fluoridation Causes Hypothyroidism
      JJ Warren, Maria CP Saraiva
      J Evid Base Dent Pract 2015;15:137-139

      3. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any association of optimally fluoridated water with ADHD. The Malin/Till study on which the author bases his erroneous claim regarding ADHD has, like Peckham’s study, been widely discredited in the scientific literature for its poor methodology, inadequate control for confounders, and reaching a conclusion not supported by the scientific literature.

      “It’s [Malin] an ecological study design with 51 observations (50 states & DC), and is not appropriate to test a hypothesis. ADHD prevalence was based on self-reported data, and hence had a potential of misclassification of disorder status. State-wide fluoridation measures were used. Individuals’ exposure to fluoridation were not measured. Due to ecological assessment of exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the use of prevalence data of self-reported ADHD and water fluoridation from different years, the findings are at high risk for ecological fallacy. Authors did not adjust for important confounders (smoking, low birth weight, age, sex etc.). Moreover, authors’ poor literature review and skewed interpretation of literature concerning fluoride and neurodevelomental defects may have introduced bias.”


      Additionally, clear demonstration of the inadequate control for confounders by Malin is the 2015 study by Huber, et al. Huber, utilizing the same data as did Malin, concluded the reported cases of ADHD to be correlated with the elevation at which the children lived, not with fluoridated water.

      —–Association Between Altitude and Regional Variation of ADHD in Youth
      Rebekah S. Huber, et al.
      Journal of Attention Disorders March 25, 2015 1087054715577137

      4. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on IQ from optimally fluoridated water. The reference given by the author to support his claim of IQ loss is nothing but a biased opinion piece in an online publication.

      The “reduced IQ studies” are a reference to a 2011 review of 27 Chinese studies dug out of obscure Chinese journals by researchers Phillippe Grandjean and Anna Choi. These studies were of the effects of high levels of fluoride (as high as 11.5 ppm) in the well-water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages.

      By the admission of Grandjean and Choi, themselves, these studies had key information missing, inadequate control for confounders, and questionable methodologies. These 27 studies were so seriously flawed that Grandjean and Choi were led to issue a public statement in March, 2012 that the studies should not be used to judge water fluoridation in the US. This obviously has not stopped antifluoridationists from doing so anyway.

      “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

      –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author.


      5. The only fluorosis which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild dental fluorosis, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.

      The US Institute of Medicine established daily upper limit of fluoride intake before adverse effects may occur is 10 mg. Therefore, the 2-5 mg daily fluoride intake noted by the author, is but one fifth to one half the threshold for any concern with adverse effects.

      India is one of the most environmentally fluoride polluted countries in the world. The problems encountered by the unfortunate Indian citizens who are chronically exposed to abnormally high levels of fluoride from the environment, have no relevance to water in the United States fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

      If skeletal fluorosis was attributable to optimally fluoridated water, in the nearly 75% fluoridated United States, this disorder would be rampant in the US by now. Skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the US as to be nearly non-existent.

      6. Luke’s dissertation was in regard to the effects of high levels of fluoride on gerbils. It has no relevance to the effect on humans by water fluoridated
      At the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

      There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects on the pineal gland of humans, from optimally fluoridated water.

      7. In recommending that fluoride be avoided “at all costs”, not only does the author provide no credible substantiation for such a recommendation, he is dispensing medical advice that goes against the recommendations of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare. This includes those such as the past 6 US Surgeons General, the US CDC, the US Institute of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world.

      In contrast, there is no credible organization in the world which opposes fluoridation.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society