Save Our Water - Massachusetts Communities for Pure Water

MA Communities for Pure Water & Save Our Water Committee

Web design by

Reports and Studies - Summaries

The Town of Wilmington written comments on a report written by Gregory Erickson, Director of Public Health 2/15/00

The Town of Wilmington, which has been targeted by the State Public Health Department, a coalition made up of dentists, was fortunate to have a Director of Public Health that did not blindly support the compulsory fluoridation without a review of the scientific information available from both sides. A special interest to the Director was fluoride safety, effectiveness, and appropriateness to the Town of Wilmington.

Recommendation: The Director of Public Health in Wilmington stated that fluoride was not a nutrient but was a toxin like arsenic and lead. He further stated that he believed that voluntary programs would be more appropriate and provide "freedom of choice".

Note: This report is available in its entirety by downloading it from the "Resources Page" of Fluoride Action Network or emailing Massachusetts Communities for Pure Water (saveourwater@saveourwater.org). A minimal charge will be applied for printing and postage.

Fluoride and Lead Poisoning 9/3/99

"Study finds correlation between fluorides in water and lead levels", published in the International Journal of Environment Studies, a research team headed by Roger Masters, professor at Dartmouth College, analyzed over 280,000 children in Massachusetts and found " levels of lead in the children's blood was significantly higher in Massachusetts communities using the silicofluorides", and other fluoride compounds than in towns with water that was not fluoridated. See this study at http://www.fluoridation.com/lead.htm.

Why the EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation 5/99

This report which in its entirety is available at http://www.fluoride-journal.com/99-32-3/323-179.htm discusses the National Treasure Employees Union opposition to water fluoridation. This union states, "our union is comprised of and represents approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers, and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.".

They state that their "opposition" to drinking water fluoridation has grown based on scientific literature documenting the increasingly "out-of-control exposure to fluoride and the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as people with impaired kidney function as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First a review of recent neurotoxicity research results."

This union that basically makes up the scientific community at the EPA has even filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia. This 34 page suit (http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/amicus.htm) questions the EPA's science assessments of fluoride, its safetey, and its adverse health effects.

A Crack Appears in the Fluoride Front by Michael Downey, Toronto Star 4/25/99

Dr. Hardy Limeback, up until recently a water fluoridation proponent, and a standing Professor of Dentistry at the University of Toronto has made a courageous decision to oppose water fluoridation. His research just concluded shows that fluoride accumulates more rapidly in the bones in fluoridated cities than in non-fluoridated cities and leads to increase adverse physical conditions such as Dental Fluorosis and Skeletal Fluorosis which makes bones extremely weak and brittle. Dr. Limeback, appearing by telephone on the Charlie Spencer Show 4/29/00, expressed his professional concern regarding water fluoridation. He stated that the benefit of fluoridation is so minimal because of the use of other dental hygiene programs including fluoridated toothpaste. The risks outweigh the benefits. For more details of Dr. Limeback's study, visit http://www.fluoridealert.org/.

Natick Fluoridation Study 10/97

After the order to fluoridate the water supply of Natick, MA was issued the Town Selectmen, understanding the seriousness of altering the water supply, appointed a committee to study fluoridation. This committee headed by Harlees Strauss, P.H.D., did an extensive and thorough analysis of the material with "appropriate credits". In addition to the chairmen the committe was well credentialized with P.H.D.s, Masters Degrees, and Bachelors of Science Degrees, to the credit of this entire investigative body.

The report filed on October 23, 1997 answered the directive by the Board of Selectmen of Natick. That question was, "On the basis of the documentation provided to you by the proponents and opponents, do you believe that the potential side effects associated with fluoridating Natick's public water supply outweigh the potential benefits?"*; The actual findings appear as it was presented in the Committee's October report. The entire document (60 pages long) can be downloaded from the "Resources Page" of Fluoride Action Network or to view the report online see http://www.fluoridation.com/natick.htm.

*The Committee's answer was "Yes"

Mission || In the Beginning || Commentaries || Effects on the Body
Reports/Studies || Resource Links || Rejection of Fluoridation
MA Fluoridation Law || How to Help || News and Events
FAQs || Contact Us