Skip to content

Drinking Water and Fluoride

2008 May 29

About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

Lea la versión en español a continuación de esta entrada en inglés.
Some links exit EPA or have Spanish content. Exit EPA Disclaimer

Among my duties as Hispanic liaison, I often conduct interviews in Spanish language media. Recently, I got a call from my cousin Lizette in Puerto Rico who had seen me on a Spanish TV morning show addressing the debate over tap water vs. bottled water. EPA sets the national standards for contaminants in drinking water and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets the standards for bottled water based on EPA standards.

While talking to my cousin, I mentioned—“luckily in the U.S. we have one of the safest supplies of drinking water in the world.” She was quick to remind me—“yes, but in Puerto Rico we have many water challenges. As a Puerto Rican working at EPA you should do more to create awareness of our drinking water which is not in compliance with national standards,” she admonished. She also pointed out that since Hurricane Hugo back in 1989 many people opted for bottled water because “our tap water simply doesn’t taste right.”

I admit that the Island has many water challenges. Nonetheless, I recall the poor conditions and foul smell of the Condado Lagoon at the heart of the tourist section back in the 60’s—a situation which has dramatically improved thanks to the work of EPA in Puerto Rico—just to name one of the Agency’s contributions to the Island’s health and environment.

During our phone call, my cousin mentioned another issue: the lack of fluoridation in the Island’s drinking water. “That’s why so many people on the Island have dental problems.” Given that her brother, my cousin, is a dentist, she had some evidence. Frankly, I had to do some research myself.

I found out that the decision to fluoridate drinking water in Puerto Rico or any other U.S. jurisdiction is a state and local decision. Our role is limited to ensuring that the concentration of fluoride in drinking water from natural or introduced sources does not exceed 4 mg/L. I found out that in 1998, Puerto Rico adopted a law to add fluoride to the water largely at the behest of the state dental association in order to promote dental health. Although the law might be on the books, currently the local utilities are not adding fluoride.

Even though I am not in a position to comment on the fluoride debate, I will urge consumers to learn more about their drinking water and to get involved! (PDF, 36 pages, 2.8 MB).

Agua potable y el fluoruro

Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.

Entre mis responsabilidades como enlace hispana de EPA, frecuentemente hablo con medios hispanos. Recientemente, recibí una llamada de mi prima Lizette en Puerto Rico quien me había visto en un programa matutino de televisión hablando sobre el debate del agua del grifo y el agua embotellada. EPA establece los estándares nacionales para los contaminantes en el agua potable y la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos establece los estándares para el agua embotellada basada en los estándares de EPA.

Hablando con mi prima mencioné—“afortunadamente en EE.UU. tenemos uno de los suministros de agua potable más seguros del mundo”. Ella me indicó rápidamente—“Sí, pero en Puerto Rico tenemos muchos problemas de agua. Como puertorriqueña trabajando en EPA debes hacer más para crear conciencia sobre nuestra agua potable que no está en cumplimiento con los estándares nacionales”, amonestó. También señaló que desde el huracán Hugo en 1989 muchas personas han optado por tomar agua embotellada porque “el agua del grifo simplemente tiene mal sabor”.

Admito que la Isla tiene muchos desafíos de agua. No obstante, recuerdo las condiciones pésimas y el mal olor que emanaba de la laguna del Condado al seno del centro turístico de la Isla en los años 60—una situación que ha mejorado dramáticamente gracias a la labor de EPA en Puerto Rico—sólo un ejemplo de las muchas contribuciones de la Agencia a la salud y medio ambiente de la Isla.

Durante nuestra conversación telefónica, mi prima mencionó otro tema: la falta de fluoruración en el agua potable de Puerto Rico. “Por eso tanta gente tiene problemas dentales”. Dado a que su hermano, mi primo, es dentista, ella tiene alguna evidencia. Francamente, tuve que investigar el tema.

Encontré que la decisión de añadir fluoruro al agua potable en Puerto Rico o cualquier otra jurisdicción bajo la bandera americana recae en el estado y la localidad. Sin embargo, nuestro rol es limitado al asegurar que la concentración del fluoruro en el agua potable de fuentes potables o introducidas no debe exceder 4 mg/L. Encontré que en 1998, Puerto Rico adoptó una ley para añadir fluoruro al agua potable mayormente por el cabildeo del Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico. Sin embargo, en la actualidad los servicios de agua en la Isla no están administrando el fluoruro.

A pesar de que no estoy en posición para debatir sobre el fluoruro, insto a los consumidores a aprender más sobre el agua potable y cómo involucrarse (PDF 36 pp, 1.7 MB).

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

64 Responses leave one →
  1. nyscof permalink
    May 30, 2008

    Editor’s note: The document cited below by the commenter was published on May 1, 1999. Time references like “now” and “recently” should be taken in that context.


    “Why EPA Headquarters’ Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation.”

    The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

    The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride’s only effects were beneficial – reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.

    Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have “funky” teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

    We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.\1

    Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to 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.

    In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers \2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride – as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers \3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan’s group found that several key chemicals in the brain – those that form the membrane of brain cells – were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

    Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others \4 reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed “optimal” by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats – rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix’s finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is “seen” by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the “optimal” level of 1 ppm.

    In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China\5,\6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

    Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke\7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston \8.

    From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

    We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue\9 . The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding – that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

    The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal “trigger” mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

    Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997 \14. Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. \15a, b, c, d, e. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

    Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.\16. The latest publication \17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

    John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important\18. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation – until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, “Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.” In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.

    Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health \19, \20, \21. However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste\22. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

    In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

    So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled – and apparently uncontrollable – exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media\23, that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America’s children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York\17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

    Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

    We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA’s risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

    The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry\24.

    This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.


    1.Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61.

    2.Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995)

    3. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).

    4. Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998).

    5. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)

    6.. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994).

    8. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956).

    9. Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW.

    10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

    11a. Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984).

    11b. Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984).

    11c. Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

    11d. An increase in the number of Down’s syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985).

    12. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992).

    13. Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991).

    14. New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle, B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997).

    15a. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990)

    15b. Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992).

    15c. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992).

    15d. Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly [letter]. Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995).

    15e. Water fluoridation and hip fracture [letter]. Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991).

    16. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990).

    17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47.

    18. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 1-16 (1997).

    19. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71 (1999).

    20. Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999).

    21. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999).

    22. Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991).

    23.Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street Journal Dec. 21, 1998.

    24. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.

    OTHER CITATIONS (This short list does not include the entire literature on fluoride effects)

    a. Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42 109-121 (1994)

    b. Ameliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988).

    c. Milk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986).

    d. Maternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R., Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54 263-269 (1988).

    e. Effects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J., Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985).

    f. Fluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987).

    g. Fluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 3 701-705 (1979).

    h. An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J., Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28 (1981).

    i. The effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan, Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988).

    j. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988).

    k. The crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase. Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988 (1984).

    l. Intracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986).

    m. Fluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd (London) (1937).

    n. Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825 152-166 (1997).

    o. Allergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273 (1993)

  2. Lina Younes-EPA permalink*
    May 30, 2008

    Thank you for taking the time to provide the research paper in response to my blog entry. As I mentioned in my blog, I am not in a position to comment on the fluoride debate and that as a result of my conversation with my cousin, I had to do some fact-finding myself since I assumed, erroneously I might add, that all drinking water was fluoridated.
    I hope that this entry will produce additional comments from a diversity of viewpoints. We can all benefit from this cyber-debate.

    Spanish version–Gracias por tomar el tiempo en brindar este informe en respuesta a mi entrada en el blog. Como mencioné, no estoy en una posición para comentar sobre el debate sobre el fluoruro y que como resultado de mi conversación con mi prima, tuve que investigar el asunto ya que creía, equivocadamente debo hacer notar, que a toda el agua potable se le echaba fluoruro.

    Espero que su entrada al blog genere comentarios adicionales de una diversidad de puntos de vista. Todos podemos sacar provecho de este debate cibernético.

  3. Betsy McIntyre permalink
    June 1, 2008

    After researching “Floride” I’m no longer wondering if floride caused many of the problems I have with my bones and other health issues. I grew up in one of the first citys in America that put floride in our drinking water. I started breaking bones when I was 3 years old. I’ve broke my arms 9 times, my back twice, my foot 3times and my tailbone twice. I still have dental problems so it didn’t help there either. My orthopedist said he had trouble fixing my breaks because my bones were honeycombed inside. (at age 17) Then, I found there was a study that came out after 40 years that said “That floride may of hurt some childrens bones it still helped the majority of them with dental problems.” I wish they would quit messing with nature. My body is racked with pain when I try to move. I’m only 52 old. I grew up in Wyoming, Michigan in the U.S.A.

  4. Adam permalink
    August 28, 2008

    Hmm interesting wording on the “natural and introduced sources.”

    Would the introduced sources be refering to the fluoride from aluminum and fertilizer/pesticide producers that wish to publically pollute our water supply to off load their waste by-products so they don’t have to pay for its storage???

    I’m opposed to fluoride.. because it is a personal choice, and my well water supply is being contaminated from the surrounding area’s mandatory fluoridated public water supply in Omaha, NE.

  5. Prior Notice permalink
    August 29, 2008

    I find that flouride can only be beneficial to your dental care, but if it means sacrificing brain and kidney functionality is there really a question of what’s right?

  6. Jack permalink
    November 26, 2008

    I can thank the members of the EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists and Senior Vice President, Dr. Bill Hirzy for educating me about the causes of my own health issues of the last 25 years. I can also thank for its incredible database of information about this issue. Upon switching to distilled drinking water, I noticed better health within one week. I have now gone over one year with no sickness or health problems whatsoever. I’ve studied the issue very closely, and spoken with experts in toxicology who have studied the issue and science of fluoridation independently of political and commercial influence. Knowing what I now know, I would not use tap water nor would I use fluoride toothpaste. I have now become an activist to end the madness of fluoridation in the United States and hopefully the world. The idea of introducing a highly toxic, non-approved drug into public drinking water without public consent or prescribed dose is not only illegal, it is one more cause of the multiple health issues facing Americans from exposure to chemical substances that cause biological damage to our bodies. The ultimate insult to us is that the fluoride used in our water systems is taken from the pollution left over from the fertilizer industry. In other words, the public is charged for the convenient disposal of what would otherwise be an expensive disposal problem for industry. Stopping this practice is as simple as turning it off. However, there are many professionals whose careers depend upon maintaining the myth of fluoride’s safety. Getting the dental industry, the CDC, and the ADA to admit their mistake is proving to be quite difficult. The scientific research concerning fluoride’s adverse health effects continues to gather, and someday this practice will go the way of leaded gasoline and healthy smoking.

  7. david permalink
    January 9, 2009

    I have now become an activist to end the madness of fluoridation in the United States and hopefully the world. The idea of introducing a highly toxic, non-approved drug into public drinking water without public consent or prescribed dose is not only illegal, it is one more cause of the multiple health issues facing Americans from exposure to chemical substances that cause biological damage to our bodies.

  8. Stephen permalink
    March 30, 2009

    Some interesting comments; I’ve yet to see or read about scientific proof that fluoride (which is also in your tooth paste) is dangerous to your health… it’s rather a silly assumption. In fact, it seems only the people making these claims are the ones filing frivolous lawsuits against state and local goverments.

  9. Lina-EPA permalink*
    May 14, 2009

    When I initially wrote the blog, I was not aware of all the adverse effects highlighted in everyone’s comments. I believe further discussion is necessary for all sides. Thanks for your comments.

  10. Lina-EPA permalink*
    July 27, 2009

    Thanks for your comments and visit us regularly. We update site daily–sometimes twice a day.

  11. steve permalink
    October 4, 2009

    Hey Stephen,
    “no scientific proof”…”its in toothpaste”…”dangerous to your health”…

    What more scientific proof do you need that fluoride is dangerous to your health than the warning that comes on every tube of toothpaste, and mouthwash bottle ever sold with fluoride in it…


    Sounds like enough proof to me that sodium fluoride is hazardous to your health. And I am not even suing anybody frivolously….YET!

    If you need more research…try reading the ingredients of any rat poison…”ACTIVE INGREDIENT: SODIUM FLUORIDE”

    LINA…thanks for your blog and generating open discussions about the dangers of fluoride in our drinking water. Its not just in our tap water, its in all beverages and processed foods that are made with the same treated water. there is no way to know exactly how much of that poison we are ingesting.
    Healthy people are getting sick from this toxic stuff, and sick people are getting sicker and even dying from it.

    Our gov’t isn’t concerned for our health or children’s teeth…they are worried about money, and profiting from the poisons they add to our drinking water by making us sick and miserable…and the millions they save from not having to dispose of this toxic waste from the phosphate and aluminum industries… properly.

  12. October 29, 2009


    Dear agent. Im writing to inform you that there is a “Weapon of Mass Destruction” being produced in several locations around the country and it is being used as a chemical weapon on millions of my fellow countryman resulting in mass murder. This very deadly chemical is the hazardous waste left over from the manufacturing of metal and pesticides. As an example of how deadly this chemical is, you should know its used as the active ingredient in rat poison. In an effort to avoid paying the costs of hazardous waste disposal there has been a number of deliberate and organized criminal enterprises which are engaged in intentionaly poisoning millions of americans for monetary gain. There is a number of organized criminal enterprises in this country that takes deadly toxic waste left over from manufacturing, and because it’s too toxic to dump in the ocean they instead dump it in the public drinking water of millions of unsuspecting americans. I’m talking about the deadly chemical Sodium Fluoride which is an industrial waste product and highly toxic to humans. The origins of this chemical date back to WWII when the nazis added it to the drinking water of the concentration camp prisoners because they believed the poison made the camp prisoners more docile. Then a decade later americans are bombarded with lies and which have no scientific basis which were intended to make americans think it would be good for our teeth to add this poison to our water supply. Now after 50 years of being poisoned we are now at a time when it is a scientific fact that Sodium Fluoride Is a dangerous poison shown to cause bone cancer and numerous other ailments in laboratory tests. We Americans are led to believe Fluoridated water is safe and it is solely for our own benefit so we can have better teeth right? Why is it the Anerican Medical Assoc. just released a report warning parents of the danger of mixing baby food with Fluoridated water? Could it be that it is a known fact that adding poison to baby food could be harmful? Why is it that a few years ago the head of the American Dental Assoc was going to release a report which was to expose the truth about Fluoridated water but was quickly fired and was never to receive any future grants? It couldnt be more obvious that the criminals will do anything to keep their crimes hidden. The truth is that this poison has a very harmful effect on teeth causing the destruction and yellowing called Fluoridosis. We need someone in government with the courage to investigate this. Why is it that %95 of Europe has a ban on Fluoridated water but their teeth are healthier than ours? It’s obvious to me that the sole purpose of dumping this waste in public water is for monetary gain and I urge you to take action. To locate a W.M.D. all you have to do is open the faucet of any 1 of the millions of American homes connected their cities municipal water supply. I beg you to start an investigation. This is murder on a scale so large it makes the holocaust look like a walk in the park. Sincerely, A true American patriot

  13. Anita Knight permalink
    November 4, 2009

    It is curious that 2 government documents that are very informative on this subject are not ever mentioned in the news or, evidently read by this department. They are:

    “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride”, 1993, National Academy of Sciences Report for Congress, available online (see especially pages 5, 11, 16, 34, 44-45, 128 and 129)

    “Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F), 1993 (see especially pages 112, 125, and 128) and 2003 (see especially pages 162-3 and 177)

  14. Anita Knight permalink
    November 4, 2009

    The source of most fluoridation agents is the phosphate fertilizer industries in central florida. In my archaeological and paleontological book: “The Geology of Florida”, 1997, University Press of Florida, page 143 gives the details:

    “In addition to uranium, fluorine is an economical byproduct of phosphoric-acid production. The fluorine from the rock reacts with silica to form SiF4 gas. During acid production this gas is recovered as fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) in wet scrubbers that are part of the environmental-protection equipment. Fluorosilicic acid is widely used in the preparation of chemical compounds and in the treatment of public drinking water.”

    Next see: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard for Fluorosilicic Acid B703-06. The foreward gives same data as above, and notes on page ix; “The transfer of contaminants from chemicals to processed water or the residual solids is becoming a problem of greater concern.” Then page 13 is an entire page of contaminants in this commercial grade, ranging from heavy metals as arsenic, lead, and more down to “Radionuclides” as uranium, radium 226-228, Alpha and Beta particles.

    All low levels, but can be cumulative in people with poor diets and health.

  15. Emergency dentist permalink
    December 5, 2009

    As a dentist, I have seen the benefits of fluoridated water. Patients who grew up in areas where drinking water was not fluoridated exhibit far more dental decay and other dental problems than patients who had fluoridated water. I believe the benefits of fluoride in the water far outweigh the disadvantages.

  16. Fluoride permalink
    December 22, 2009

    Dear Emergency Dentist,

    Wake Up!

    The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified Fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.
    Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.1

    A Chronology of Fluoridation
    By Val Valerian
    Material Added on November 3, 1997
    (c) 1996,1997 Leading Edge Research Group. All Rights Reserved.
    P.O. Box 7530, Yelm, Washington 98597
    “Fluoridation is not a Communist Plot; it is an attempt by industry to camouflage their deadliest pollutant, with government officials and Madison Avenue advertisers beating the drums. The fluoridation empire is like a castle built on quicksand.” Gladys Caldwell, author, “Fluoridation and Truth Decay”, 1974

  17. h2o on caffeine permalink
    December 26, 2009

    I have now become an activist to end the madness of fluoridation in the United States and hopefully the world. The idea of introducing a highly toxic, non-approved drug into public drinking water without public consent or prescribed dose is not only illegal, it is one more cause of the multiple health issues facing Americans from exposure to chemical substances that cause biological damage to our bodies. The ultimate insult to us is that the fluoride used in our water systems is taken from the pollution left over from the fertilizer industry. In other words, the public is charged for the convenient disposal of what would otherwise be an expensive disposal problem for industry. Stopping this practice is as simple as turning it off. However, there are many professionals whose careers depend upon maintaining the myth of fluoride’s safety. Getting the dental industry, the CDC, and the ADA to admit their mistake is proving to be quite difficult. The scientific research concerning fluoride’s adverse health effects continues to gather and should be tracked by a gps ntp device, and someday this practice will go the way of leaded gasoline and healthy smoking.

  18. Anonymous permalink
    January 14, 2010

    Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead.
    Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE.

  19. Anonymous permalink
    January 14, 2010

    Pub Med

    Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.

    Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead.

    Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals.

    Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study.

    Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights.

    Dose-effect relationship between drinking water fluoride levels and damage to liver and kidney functions in children.

  20. Anonymous permalink
    January 14, 2010

    Look up these names in the search area at the Fluoride Action Network
    Dr. William Marcus
    Dr. Hardy Limeback
    Dr. Robert Carton
    Dr. William Hirzy
    Dr. Kathleen Thiessen
    Dr. Joey Hensley
    Dr. Dean Burk
    Dr. Yiamouyannis
    Dr. Yiamouyiannis
    Dr. Phyllis Mullenix
    Arvid Carlsson


  21. Anonymous permalink
    January 14, 2010

    Environmental Protection Agency Union’s National Headquarters in Washington D.C. has been warning people for years about the dangers of water fluoridation.

    Fluoride impairs thyroid function health problems like weight gain, depression, fatigue, and many more.

    Toxic Waters The Truth About Water Fluoridation

    about fluoride

    Letter from Dr. Richard Shames – Letter to Palm Beach Board of County Commissioners, May 1, 2006

    Heavy Metal Analysis

    Physician Legislator Advises Tennessee Water Districts to Halt Water Fluoridation

    CDC faces ethics charges for failure to warn the public on fluoride’s risks

    ADA Cements It’s Influence on CDC Fluoride Policy

    ADA eGRAM Not to give infants fluoridated water

    Blacks Harmed by Fluoridated Water

    National Kidney Foundation Withdraws Fluoride Endorsement

    Water department employee resigns over adding fluoride

    Georgia Water Worker Fired For Refusing to Fluoridate

    US EPA Union letter (pdf) to the Commissioners of the Water Utility

    Termination of Employment letter and more

    video of Dr. William Hirzy (EPA)SENATE TESTIMONY ON FLUORIDE

    Transcript of Dr. William Hirzy (EPA) SENATE TESTIMONY ON FLUORIDE

    Interview with Dr. William Hirzy (EPA)

    Video Dr. Vyvyan Howard’s Toronto presentation

    Dr. William Marcus’ Internal Memo

    Dr. Robert Carton, a former risk assessment scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency, reviews the strengths and limitations of the NRC’s report.

    Interview with NRC Panel Member Dr. Kathleen Thiessen

    The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming
    By Dr. Hardy Limeback

    Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS
    Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
    University of Toronto
    Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water

    Why EPA’s Headquarters Professionals’ Union Opposes Fluoridation


    The Fluoride Controversy: The Facts & The Fiction

    The Fluoride Deception

    Pesticidal Uses Sodium Fluoride

    Is Fluoride Really As Safe As You Are Told?

    Fluoride’s Mutagenicity (Genotoxicity)

    Fluoride & Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer)

    Statements EPA Headquarters Union

    Unfinished Business: Congress & Fluoride

    Submission to CA OEHHA
    “Fluoride and osteosarcoma”

    Fluoride Action Network

    read the comments under the fluoride videos

  22. Anonymous permalink
    January 15, 2010

    Kidney Foundation Drops Fluoridation Support

  23. Anonymous permalink
    January 15, 2010

    Letter from Attorney to National Kidney Foundation (Resulted in NKF Changing its Stance on Water Fluoridation)


    On November 9, 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) issued an alert advising parents to avoid using water with added fluoride when mixing infant formula. Likewise, the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) recommends that “Supplementary fluoride should not be provided during the first six months of life.”

    Contrary to these clear warnings, Nursery Water, one of the nation’s biggest infant bottled water companies, markets its fluoridated water to infants and claims in its marketing and advertising that fluoride in water will “strengthen your little one’s teeth” and “prevent tooth decay.”

    On February 21, 2008, Herman Gerel, LLP filed the first suit in the country against one of the nation’s biggest infant bottled water companies – Nursery Water – for misleading parents with erroneous information on its website and advertising materials regarding the safety and benefits of fluoride in infant bottled water, in clear violation of Federal Trade Commission rules. This case is currently pending in the Central District of California. See DiSimone v. DS Waters of America, Inc.

  24. Anonymous permalink
    January 20, 2010

    Water Fluoridation “Obsolete” According to Nobel Prize Scientist
    Nations who still practice it “should feel ashamed of themselves”

    Excerpts of Interview with Dr. Arvid Carlsson, October 4, 2005

    CONNETT: So, what happened in Sweden. The fluoridation issue was proposed…

    CARLSSON: Yes, I think it was up twice… The second time, there was a proposal that the Swedish Parliament should allow addition of fluorine to the water supplies in Sweden and I became rather active as I had been the first time, and I think I was perhaps the one who more than anyone else convinced the Swedish parliament that this was not a good thing. So, it was voted out, this proposal. And that was around 1980. So you can see it’s a long time ago. And after that addition of fluorine to water supplies in Sweden has not been an issue anymore. These days nobody talks about it anymore.


    CONNETT: Do you think that your background in pharmacology sort of informed your view of fluoridation as a medical practice?

    CARLSSON: Of course. I mean, as I said before, this is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It’s really obsolete. No doubt about that. I mean, I think those nations that are using it should feel ashamed of themselves. It’s against science.


    CARLSSON: Fluorine has a protecting action against caries, but this is a local effect… If you drink it, you are running the risk of all kinds of toxic actions. And, of course, there are such actions. We have the mottled teeth, which is not a small thing… There is no need, really, to go any further into all these other toxicity problems because I think the mottled teeth is enough. This is something you shouldn’t expose citizens to.

    CONNETT: In the United States, the dental community says that dental fluorosis is just a cosmetic effect, it’s just spots on the teeth. Do you see mottled teeth as a toxic effect of fluoride, or as simply a cosmetic effect?

    CALRSSON: Well, it is a toxic effect and a cosmetic effect. These are not mutually exclusive. It’s toxic and it’s cosmetic.


    CONNETT: What about this notion of using the water supply as a vehicle of delivering medication? Can you speak to what you see as the problems with that?

    CARLSSON: Yea, it’s absolutely obsolete. In modern pharmacology it’s so clear that even if you have a fixed dose of a drug, the individuals respond very differently to one and the same dose. Now, in this case, you have it in the water and people are drinking different amounts of water. So you have huge variations in the consumption of this drug. So, it’s against all modern principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete, I don’t think anybody in Sweden, not a single dentist, would bring up this question in Sweden anymore.


    CONNETT: You mentioned that fluoride’s benefits come from the local, or topical, effect. Could you just discuss a little more what you see as the significance of that fact? Why is it important that fluoride’s benefit is topical, and not from ingestion?

    CARLSSON: Well, in pharmacology, if the effect is local, it’s of course absolutely awkward to use it in any other way than as a local treatment. I mean this is obvious. You have the teeth there, they’re available for you, why drink the stuff?… I see no reason at all for giving it in any other way than locally — topically, if you wish.


    CONNETT: In the US, the Centers for Disease Control, which is a US government health body, has proclaimed water fluoridation to be one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century.

    CARLSSON: I disagree profoundly.

    See more here

  25. Lina-EPA permalink*
    February 5, 2010

    I thank everyone for providing all the comments and useful research on this issue.

  26. Amy Bathurst permalink
    March 19, 2010

    As a Richmond Hill dentist practicing for 20 years, I can say flouride has been a tremendous benefit in reducing the incidence of dental cavities.

  27. Dr. Lee permalink
    April 5, 2010

    Quite interesting data to be analyzed and reviewed.

  28. Dr. Lee permalink
    April 5, 2010

    More information on the impact of fluoride can be found at:

  29. nyscof permalink
    April 6, 2010

    If you don’t accept Medicaid patients or people who can’t afford dental care, then you are only seeing wealthier healthier people who most often have the least tooth decay. Objective studies done on New York City residents show very high rates of tooth decay despite the water being fluoridated since 1965.

    Further non-fluoridated neighboring Nassau County residents have lower tooth decay rates than fluoridated Queens County

    Modern science indicates that ingesting fluoride does not reduce tooth decay.

  30. richmond hill dentist permalink
    June 4, 2010

    Fluoridated water is the best thing to happen in dentistry to decrease this incidence of dental cavities for the past few decades.

  31. Dark Circles Cream permalink
    June 22, 2010

    Pretty good post. This is about “Drinking Water and Fluoride” I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

  32. goog permalink
    June 29, 2010

    Excellent post. Now your blog is in my favorite.

  33. Angelica in CA permalink
    July 12, 2010

    How can I get involved politically to end fluoride being put into my water??

  34. Dentista permalink
    September 1, 2010

    I heard some people say that water from the tap cleaned with a special equipment works out the best. Not even mineral water from plastic bottles is healthy as plastic poisons the water plus the mineral content might not be good either. I support that view that people need to get information on what they drink really.

  35. Kevin Megan permalink
    September 10, 2010

    I guess even how careful we are in our drinking water, food and health we all die because were mortals

  36. Wayne Gin permalink
    September 20, 2010

    There is a lot of good information here and we all need to make our own decisions and how it impacts on our individual situations.

  37. Kevin Megan permalink
    September 22, 2010

    most bottled water lost it’s minerals so choose the purified water not the distilled

  38. gps dog collar permalink
    October 5, 2010

    There are positives and negatives on both sides. Flouride has its benefits, however, its the quantity that is critical.

  39. Dentist Edinburgh permalink
    October 6, 2010

    It’s always best to go with what nature has provided. Too much chem could also be harmful sometimes. Just restore nature to its primitive form and you’ll get the balance that you’ve been looking for.

  40. Centre recyclage permalink
    October 9, 2010

    Fluoridation involves adding small amounts of a fluoride compound to drinking water in controlled amounts, with the goal of promoting dental health.

  41. Centre recyclage permalink
    October 9, 2010

    Fluoridation involves adding small amounts of a fluoride compound to drinking water in controlled amounts, with the goal of promoting dental health.

  42. Boiler permalink
    October 20, 2010

    Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride. The practice occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not fluoridate public water supplies, although some continental countries fluoridate salt. Fluoridated water operates on tooth surfaces.

  43. Boiler permalink
    October 28, 2010

    Fluoride in drinking-water will be an invaluable reference source for all those concerned with the management of drinking-water containing fluoride and the health effects arising from its consumption, including water sector managers and practitioners as well as health sector staff at policy and implementation levels.

  44. Water Treatment permalink
    November 6, 2010

    Fluoride in drinking-water will be an invaluable reference source for all those concerned with the management of drinking-water containing fluoride and the health effects arising from its consumption, including water sector managers and practitioners as well as health sector staff at policy and implementation levels.

  45. Home Cleaning Service permalink
    November 20, 2010

    Unfortunately, most dental professionals have a difficult time accepting that new medical and scientific understanding often change what we held to be true decades earlier. This is just human nature.
    House Cleaning Service

  46. Al Carrelli permalink
    December 7, 2010

    You are right in telling people that fluoride operates on tooth surfaces. It is also chemistry that tells us hydrofluorosilicic acid ( the most commonly used fluoride additive) combined with hydrochloric (stomach) acid forms fluoricic acid, which is one of the strongest acids known to science. The other unsettling fact is that with each glass of fluoridated water you drink, you are also getting a dose of arsenic which, with its bioaccumlative quality, will be with you for the rest of your life.

  47. Coupon Codes permalink
    December 16, 2010

    Great post. Thanks for an interesting read. I’ve just subscribed to this blog so I’ll be back soon! Cheers I enjoy your blog posts,Thanks for posting this informative article.

  48. Matt permalink
    January 31, 2011

    I have always been curious about if anything in water can actually cause cancer. I was thinking that maybe taking showers in filthy water could cause some types of skin cancer or cancerous moles. I look at and they had some symptoms but not anything regarding water. Any ideas?

  49. Quincy Dentist permalink
    May 20, 2011

    Whether it is tap water and bottled water, both can still be considered as unclean. even if how clean your water is, but when put to bottle there is a big chance that water gets unclean!

  50. Naples Dentist permalink
    July 9, 2011

    Thanks,I think this is better topic for me. I get some benifit by this topic. You can’t go anywhere without some type of stimulus coming at you but it’s effective. To requried atopics, It is also so much important for us.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. Marlene Affeld
  2. Study in Canada
  3. carton network

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS