As demonstrated in the videos and supporting sources (see icon), when a dental or public health association claim that adding a fluoridation chemical to public water is simply adding a natural mineral, they are engaging in inaccurate and misleading rhetoric.


Even if the fluoride ion could be considered a mineral, that would not mean that it is necessarily beneficial for the body.

Most minerals are not nutrients. (see Minerals By Name).  In fact many naturally occurring minerals like lead and mercury are considered toxic at all doses.

It is true that in nature the fluoride ion is often part of the non-nutrient mineral Calcium Fluoride, a substance that is highly stable, safe to hold, practically insoluble and hardly digestible due to the very strong bond between fluoride and calcium.

But when the dilution of a man-made fluoridation chemical or geological activity leads to dissociated fluoride ions in water ready to bond with an atom or molecule, such fluoride ions are not minerals.

From a non-nutrient mineralogy perspective, dissociated fluoride ions in water could be described as trace non-nutrient mineral elements, but it is more precise to simply describe them as the ionic or salt form of the basic element (atom) fluorine which is the most reactive atom (element) in the periodic table which means that fluorine / fluoride is capable of chemically bonding with the greatest number of other atoms. 

The incredible reactivity of fluorine / fluoride is why so many biochemists, chemists, toxicologists, pharmacologists, physiologists, physicians and even dentists describe it as an enzyme disruptor capable of chronic adverse affects to the developing brain, thyroid gland, stomach, connective tissues, bones and kidneys. 

It’s hard to say with absolute certainty why the public health associations in the US, Canada and five other developed nations continue to ignore and dismiss all the published research including the most respected systematic reviews conducted on water fluoridation, whenever such research even slightly disagrees with their policies. 

Here’s what we can say:

  • Many of these dental and public health agencies made mistakes in the past when, for decades, they ignored and dismissed published research demonstrating the chronic toxicity of tobacco, lead, mercury, asbestos and other substances.

As for water fluoridation, the public health agencies that continue to promote this practice consistently dismiss and ignore any data that disagrees with their policies, including the fact that even without any fluoride added to drinking water, most people are already ingesting more fluoride on a daily basis than these agencies deem safe due to:

Until the 1970s, none of these other sources of fluoride were widely available. Educated critics of water fluoridation  point out that due to the widespread use of fluoride pesticides, the processing of foods and drinks with fluoridated water, and the use of fluoridated toothpastes, even without fluoride added to water, many children are already receiving too much fluoride when all sources of fluoride are taken into consideration.

If you’ve read this far, and are taking the time to verify the validity and credibility of the data presented in this website, you may be starting to understand why the majority of developed nations do not fluoridate water and why, since the year 2000, over 350 municipal regions in North America have chosen to disagree with their public health services and stopped fluoridating the water their citizens rely on for drinking, cooking and bathing.