Keyword search
Restoring your Human Rights

West Midlands Against Fluoridation and for Pure, Clean Water 

We exist to persuade

   policy-makers to STOP fluoridating West Midlands' drinking water

and to spread awareness.

We hope that you will like this site and the valuable information which we've worked hard to uncover and publish.  
If you want to spread the word, please contact  

Good Gopher is an ethical search engine and the inspiration of Mike Adams of Natural News who is one of the good guys.  

WMAF is a member of the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance (UKFFFA).  


and a Founding Member of the Worldwide Alliance to End Fluoridation


We support Facebook: Friends of West Midlands Against Fluoride




Archived News and Comment
Select NEWS from the left-hand-side of this home page 



County Durham, South Tyneside, Sunderland City, Darlington, Middlesbrough and Sheffield Local Authorities (LAs) are all "exploring" water fluoridation.  Leicester City has solved its dental decay problems by treating children as individuals via its Healthy Teeth, Happy Smiles programme.  The really good news is that Hull has decided that WF is too expensive and the science is not proven so has called off the "exploration". 

Notice the new word "explore" has crept into Public Health England's vocabulary in order to persuade LAs to at least commission a feasibility study.  Once the money is committed, then LAs will be reluctant to admit that they have wasted money.  If the LA is really reluctant, PHE and the Clinical Commissioning Group (NHS) will pay for initial costs thus removing a reason for reluctance to "explore".  But note that PHE reserves the right to claw back the capital expenditure, the cost of the feasibility reports and public consultation from the local authority once the fluoride tap has been turned on. (Drinking Water Inspectorate 
Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies 2016, page 2.).  In the case of West Cumbria, PHE has even clawed back the cost of installing fluoride dosing equipment. The expectation therefore is that 'exploring' local authorities will also be expected to stump up for everything.


Do you often have hiccoughs or is this a chronic condition which is ruining your life?  Go to Issues Unrelated to Water Fluoridation in the left-hand-side menu for the cure.  When you get there note that although this cure is free, in order to beat Water Fluoridation, a donation would be appreciated.  See the Donation button above.


17th March 2019:  Gosh!  A newspaper article which talks about dental decay in the West Midlands without Sandra White (PHE Dental Health lead) mentioning water fluoridation (WF)!  However, old habits die hard and she is still urging the use of fluoride toothpaste.  I suppose it would be difficult to urge water fluoridation in the West Midlands because there is almost a 100% blanket coverage in the Region.  We knew that dental decay in the West Midlands was bad but not this bad. 

I wonder what would happen if WF ceased in the Region? Would decay increase, reduce or remain the same?  Well, dental decay rates have been dropping throughout Europe whether or not a country practises WF so why bother with WF?


Go to LINK for the full newspaper article.  


17th March 2019: There is a new innovative toothpaste from Japan and not a mention of 'fluoride' anywhere.  A must read!  LINK


16th March 2019:  The LINK will take you to an excellent website - - where the American Dental Association (ADA) is put under the spotlight. 


15th March 2019:  Joy Warren of UKFFFA gave a talk in Darlington on 14th March. The talk was entitled "The Fallacies of Fluoridation".  We have uploaded the handout listing the Fallacies together with references to research etc. which backs up our claim that WF is a fallacious policy.

LINK  to Fallacies References.

There is a Powerpoint Presentation - The Fallacies of Fluoridation. Please be patient while we prepare the ppp for uploading.

12th March 2019: Fluoridation does NOT reduce dental health inequalities across social groups. The evidence is being placed here for the benefit of people who wish to cite evidence against WF in respect of Dental Health Inequalities. LINK

19th February 2019:  Will they never give up?

The LINK takes you to Hansard where Sir Paul Beresford MP, the ex-New Zealand pro-fluoridation zealot and part-time dentist (and ex-vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society) asks the Minister of State to "persuade" local authorities to fluoridate their drinking water.  

In the first instance, Public Health England is not doing such a bad job at persuading North-East councils to "explore" water fluoridation so Sir Paul does not need to worry that the forces of coercion are slumbering.

In the second instance, surely it's for the local authorities to persuade their constituents that WF is necessary?  Nowhere in the Health and Social Care Act 2013 does it state that HM Government has the responsibility of persuading local authorities to fluoridate.  The issue has been devolved to local authorities which may or may not choose to take note of PHE advice.

Turning now to PHE, it is apparently their policy to favour WF.  We are told that they look at a whole raft of interventions including WF.  However, in the NICE Oral Health Strategy Guidance for Local Authorities and Partners, we do NOT see WF being recommended.  Since NICE is the champion of clinical excellence, it is to their Guidance that Local Authorities should refer in preference to listening to pro-fluoridaton PHE dental health consultants who have inherited the policy from the defunct Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs).  Note that PHE is peppered with the same staff who used to work for the SHAs.  We would like to know if the policy has been inherited as opposed to being deliberately reinforced on hand-over of responsibility.

We're really pleased to see that the Minister refused to be drawn on the issue but concerned that this means that Sir Paul will now be able to give him the low-down without there being any counteracting evidence.  Hopefully UKFFFA's letter to Stephen Hammond will be read by him without being diverted by his gate-keepers.  If it's diverted, we will see once again that our democratic rights are being squashed.

12th February 2019:   Here's an intriguing article by the sponsors of the Fluorosilicic Acid Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast, 2013 - 2019 yearbook.  It contains some interesting claims! LINK  

6th February 2019: 
The Alzheimer's Association (USA) withdraws its endorsement of water fluoridation.   LINK  
Comment:  there is a long list of organisations in the USA which have traditionally endorsed water fluoridation.  Most of the endorsement have been "on the nod" and members of the organisations have not been knowledgeable on the topic.   The AA is following closely in the footsteps of the Children's Health Defense which is fronted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.


17th January 2019: Sodium and Sulphate contents of bottled water in the UK.

Natural Mineral Water and Spring Water should contain unvarying concentrations of sodium and sulphate.  On the other hand, tap water varies due to the practice of blending water from different sources at different times of the year. NHS Choices warns against using bottled water when making up baby formula but is this warning justified?   The LINK takes you to a table in which we have endeavoured to classify bottled water according to its sodium and sulphate contents. 

The conclusion is that even though bottled water needs to be boiled, tap water is no exception.  In most cases the concentration of sodium and sulphate is lower in bottled water than in tap water.

Please read the label before purchasing if you are intending to use the bottled water to make up baby formula.


LINK  I'll bet you never thought that you had blue, green and red munchies in your cells.  Well, you do!.  This is a perfectly wonderful animation of the processes which go on inside your cells.  It's not off-topic because it is relatively easy to envisage how pollutants could prevent certain processes in our cells.  

January 2019:  EDITORIAL  Water Fluoridation is Illegal. No "ifs" no "buts".

The pharmaceutical companies and the authors of the British National Formulary are far more cautious than English local authorities when it comes to prescribing fluoride.


Each pill contains 0.5ppm fluoride.
Do not use in areas with more than 0.3 ppm fluoride in drinking water.
Do not give to children under 3 years of age.
Do not use if you are pregnant.

If you're a pregnant woman living in a fluoridated area, you're advised to drink lots of water.  That's a minimum of 2ppm fluoride each day for 9 months where the water is dosed with 1ppm fluoride. The background level of 0.3ppm is thought by the pharmaceutical company as being acceptable so a pregnant fluoridated woman would be overdosing by 1.4ppm fluoride where the woman drinks 2 litres of fluoridated tap water and lives in an area where the water is dosed with 1ppm fluoride.   (2 x 1ppm = 2ppm less 2 x 0.3ppm = 1.4ppm)

Why would a pharmaceutical company advise that pregnant women do not take these tablets?  What do they know that Public Health England (PHE) does not know or does not want to know?

If you're an infant living in a fluoridated area, NHS Choices recommends that your powder baby formula is made up with boiled tap water because bottled water is not sterile (!) and because it contains too much sodium (!!).  The fluoride tablets are not to be given to children under 3 years of age and this implies that their exposure should be no more than 0.3ppm background fluoride/day.  Yet, a fluoridated infant drinking ½ litre baby formula will drink 0.5ppm fluoride/day and this increases as its consumption of fluoridated baby formula increases.  Where the water is dosed with 1ppm fluoride, infants and babies are overdosing on fluoride  in baby formula by 0.2ppm - 0.7ppm fluoride per litre.  The NHS is really keen on prevention but has forgotten to factor in the negative influence that fluoride has on every cell in our bodies.  "We use fluoride to poison enzymes.  That's why things die." (James D Sumner, Nobel Prize Wineer, mid-20th Century.)

The dosage for children between 3 and 5 years is ½ a tablet = 0.25ppm fluoride.  If the background level of fluoride is 0.3ppm, they could receive a total of 0.55ppm fluoride/litre.  Yet if they are fluoridated, they will be drinking 1ppm fluoride/litre.  Since Public Health England is reluctant to accept that small children only drink one-third of a litre of tap water a day (since to admit that they don't drink one litre a day would weaken their case for fluoridating our drinking water), we have to accept that these young children are overdosing by 0.45ppm fluoride/litre.

Finally, let's not forget the unborn child which receives fluoride via the placenta, eventually finding its way into the fetal brain which does not have a blood-brain-barrier.  It is during gestation that the intelligence of the child becomes reduced as shown by almost 60 research reports published in the past 3 decades culminating in the work of Bashash et al.

Public Health England is careless of our health because that organisation is tied into a policy which is based on old manipulated science from the 1940s by several USA 'agents', initially in order to help ALCOA, the national aluminium smelting company to cheaply dispose of its hazardous waste.  This is not a conspiracy 'theory' and a read of Christopher Bryson's carefully researched book "The Fluoride Deception" ought to convince the most determined pro-fluoridationist that fluoride added to drinking water has never been anything other than an excuse to cheaply dispose of waste.

PHE has a department specifically devoted to water fluoridation.  Should fluoridation cease, its staff would have to be redeployed meaning that PHE (an over-fat cat*) would shrink.  It is the aim of organisations everywhere to maintain their size and power and PHE is no different.

There is no elegant answer to this problem for PHE.  That organisation cannot issue a press release warning pregnant women, infants and young children to avoid fluoride since it is the infants and young children who are in the target group for fluoride prophylaxis.  Nor, while fluoridation policy remains encapsulated in glass, can PHE decide to stop promoting fluoridation.  The organisation's only way out is to work to reverse the policy (thus eventually losing a part of its empire) or accept that fluoridation is illegal. 

WMAF has spent the past 3 months trying to persuade the CEO of PHE, Duncan Selbie, to recognise the illegality of fluoridation.  However, it would appear that he is not listening and has now decided to stop communicating.  A reply to a letter sent by us by Recorded Delivery just before Christmas is now overdue by 7 days.

The contents of the letters from WMAF clearly spell out why fluoridation is illegal: only two compounds of fluorine are legally permitted when local authorities wish to increase fluoride levels in drinking water - hexafluorosilicic acid and disodium fluorosilicate (sodium fluoride with silica).  This is stipulated in the Water Industries Act 1991 s. 87.  Duncan Selbie has agreed that our interpretation of the law is correct.  However in the letter in which he agreed that this was the case, he uncharacteristically used a facsimile signature which we believe is not admissible in a court of law.  Our second letter in December told him that there is a third compound of fluorine present in hexafluorosilicic acid - viz. hydrofluoric acid (HF).  The concentration of HF in the 20% fluoridating acid is of less importance than the fact that HF, as a compound of fluorine, is illegal since it is not listed in The Act.  

Moreover, HF is a reportable poison (Deregulation Act 2015, Schedule 21, Part 4).  We are searching the worldwide literature for a maximum allowable standard for HF in food and water but have so far drawn a blank.  It may be that because no-one has ever contemplated adding HF to food and water in the past (well, why would they when it's a reportable poison?), no-one has ever thought to stipulate a maximum allowable.  (Perversely, sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride are legal additions to food - EU Reg. 1170/2009, Annex III refers - with both being added to milk and salt respectively.)

The WIA 1991 states "added to" as opposed to "appearing at the kitchen tap".  According to our calculations, there is up to 0.0945 mg HF added to each litre of water when 6.3mg H2SiF4 per litre of water is added.  These calculations are derived from British Standard BSEN 12175:2013.   HF is a deadly poison.  However, at these levels its effects on our health are accumulative rather than fatal and no-one drops down dead after drinking a glass of fluoridated water although many are sensitive to fluoride and report several 'minor' ailments plus problems with stomach pains upon drinking the stuff.  Similarly, no-one dies after ingesting 0.01mg/litre arsenic or lead and yet 0.01 mg/litre As and Pb is the maximum allowable in food and water.  The Drinking Water Inspectorate has to regulate the levels of As and Pb in drinking water and water companies are very careful to keep within the guidelines. 

But with 9 times more HF at up to 0.0945 mg/litre being added to drinking water, how on earth can water companies and PHE turn a blind eye to the presence of this reportable poison?  Drinking water is rendered impure by HF. The British Standard describes HF as an impurity.  The dictionary definition of an impurity is a substance "that is present in small quantities in another substance and makes it dirty or of unacceptable quality". (Collins online dictionary.)

In summary, fluoridation in the UK is illegal due to the presence of HF, a third illegal compound of fluorine and which is an impurity and a reportable poison. It renders drinking water as being of unacceptable quality.

Comments to

Mail OnLine 9th January 2019: Hundreds of nanny state staff earn more than £100,000: Surge in workers in quangos pushing public health messages getting fat-cat salaries.

13th January 2019:  Chronology of Water Fluoridation
This is a long document but well worth reading if you don't have the time to read Chris Bryson's excellect exposé "The Fluoride Deception".  LINK

7th January 2019: So here we are the other side of 2018 and raring to go!

In the autumn, WMAF had a meeting with staff at Severn Trent Water's HQ in Coventry.  This is a repeat of our annual meeting with the company at which we ask questions and invariably get no answers.  We are 'granted' this meeting as a thank you for not asking embarrassing fluoridation questions at the AGM.  Over the next few months we hope to explore the asked but unanswered questions.  Let's kick off with "why do some Water Treatment Works (WTWs) use disodium fluorosilicate instead of hexafluorosilicic acid when increasing the concentration of fluoride to 1mg fluoride/litre water? What are the names of these WTWs?

This was the second time that we had asked this question and the second time that we were denied an answer.  The company decided to shelter behind the "commercial confidentiality" excuse.

So, we have turned to acquiring part of the answer from an outside source.  The reasons for using disodium fluorosilicate are:

Small amount required so a tanker full would be too much;
Dangerous narrow road leading to the WTW;
No holding tank for liquid hexafluorosilicic acid and no bunds for liquid overspill;
No personnel trained for emergency response and evacuation if using hexafluorosilicic acid;
Cheaper to buy and transport the concrete hardener.

People whose water is fluoridated using disodium fluorosilicate will be pleased to learn that they are, in essence, getting rat poison in their drinking water since the fluoridating agent is sodium fluoride with the added goodness of silica.  Moreover, someone in Whitehall has realised this and has listed disodium fluorosilicate as a 'reportable poison' in the current law - Deregulation Act 2015, Schedule 21, Part 4. 

Don't worry if you are drinking this muck: its use is permitted in the Water Industries Act 1991 as amended.  See how they care for us!

The hunt is on for the WTWs which use sodium fluoride........


26th December 2018:  It may be Christmas but we are not on holiday.  The LINK takes you to short abstracts of 6 pieces of research published in 2018.  They sum up how fluoride causes neurological damage in humans.  (When you get there, CTRL and the + sign pressed together wil enlarge the text.)

15th December 2018: Letters and statements from the York Review team (2000) and the Cochrane Review (2015) relating to conclusions about safety and effectiveness of swallowing fluoride as a prophylaxis against dental decay:  LINK  In short, the York Review did not find that systemic fluoridation reduced dental health inequalities across social groups.  That's right:  water fluoridation is a programme which perfectly illustrates the art of smoke and mirrors.    

11th December 2018: The US National Toxicology Programme: Fluoride

We had hopes that this programme would have confirmed 21st Century science which demonstrates that fluoride is harmful to the fetus and the new born. Perversely, it was not to be and the programme has been criticised for being biased.  Here is a Video which explains the main flaws in the programme: LINK 

10th December 2018: Alzheimer's Disease is caused by systemic fluoride

Marta Goschorska and colleagues have published a review which describes how fluoride causes premature apoptosis (cell death) and inflammation in the central nervous system.  This includes the brain.  Although genetic predisposition can be wholly responsible for AD, this is rare and it's more likely for AD to occur due to a combinaton of genetic factors and environmental factors such as overexposure to fluoride which easily crosses the blood-brain-barrier.   The LINK takes you to the full report which is free to view.  The following diagram explains the biological pathways:

27th November 2018: Our Researchgate article "A Complete Waste of Money" has reached 1004 reads.  This is really extra-special.  People are sitting up and taking notice.  All the money spent on water fluoridation programmes is wasted in leaks, used by industry and agriculture and through household uses other than as drinking water.  Also, young children are not drinking their ration of the poison per day according to the UK's National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2014.

So why bother to add it to drinking water in the first place.  It can't surely be because shareholders of Israel Chemicals (the supplier) have the ear of UK Government officials, can it?                                         LINK

25th November 2018:
  A new kid on the block!

Finally, good sense has broken through the murky curtain of fluoride.  A new mouth rinse based on iodine, and not on fluoride.  Not only does it kill oral  bacteria but it reduces LDL cholesterol, and it is claimed that this will protect the heart.  Since most of human civilization is thought to have borderline iodine levels or is deficient in iodine, such a mouthwash ought to help to reduce dental decay WITHOUT poisoning our bodies as is the case with fluoride-based preparations.  Now all we need is to see iodide toothpaste and the 'age of fluoride' will be banished altogether.  LINK 
Caution: as with anything to do with the thyroid gland, it is vital that people consult their GPs since it can be health-damaging to ingest too much iodide which can cause hyperthyroidism.
14th November 2018:  Video from Fluoride Action Network.

Paul Connett, a retired Professor of Chemistry, explains the origin of H2SiF  LINK

13th November 2018:  Vets warn not to brush a dog's teeth with fluoride toothpaste. 

"Small doses of fluoride can give dogs diarrhoea and induce vomiting as it reduces the calcium in the blood and increases potassium levels, Dr Nicola Robinson, head of the Veterinary Poisons Information Service, said."

Thinks!  If it reduces calcium in the blood of a dog, will it also do this in a small child's blood?  Will the potassium levels of a small child also increase?  I rather think that the answer to both questions is "YES".  How many small children swallow their toothpaste while their parent's back is turned?   LINK

29th October 2018:  Useful quotes from Activists in the USA.

"Recent science is CHALLENGING ASSUMPTIONS about the biological impact of fluoride consumption and the policy of fluoridation. Modern studies document that fluoridation is neither safe nor effective, but rather is a dangerous practice of all risk with little or no benefit."

"This is no longer about tooth decay. This is about permanent brain damage and other illnesses in susceptible populations, such as hypothyroidism, and ADHD, requiring other medications with other potential side effects."    Please copy freely.

23rd October 2018:  Parry Sound (Ontario) Anti-Fluoridation success


In the past 24 hours, 1500 Parry Sounders have voted against WF and 882 have voted in favour.  Parry Sound will not become fluoridated.  Wish that we could say the same for the West Midlands (UK).

22nd October 2018:  Compensation finally to be paid to children poisoned with 6.9mg fluoride/litre

Hundreds of children in Tibiri, Niger are to be paid compensation after 3 decades of delay.  Even though the Judicial Review ruled 3 years ago that they should be compensated for the health damage caused by too much fluoride in treated water for too long a time in the late 20th Century, the Niger Government has dragged its feet.  Compensation will amount to $3.5 million.  Deformities caused by the overdose are skull enlargement, convulsions, severe bone pain, deformed bones and fragility, as well as our old friend, dental fluorosis.  In the case of the Tibiri children, their teeth have turned reddish in colour.  LINK and LINK

20th October 2018:  Guest article by pharmacist, Kris Phillips: Fluoridated water - a drug by any other name.  LINK

17th October 2018:  A Complete Waste of Money: Water Fluoridation Costs for England, 2013-2021.

This technical report has been read 973 times.  Here is the LINK to the report.

Updated revenue expenditure for 2017-2018 is not in the report.  Go to LINK to see them.  Costs decreased during 2017-2018.  We think that this is because the supplier of the fluoridating acid has changed from D.D. Fluor (Spain) to Israel Chemicals.  The originating country of the new supply of fluoridating acid is unknown but we are told by the Drinking Water Inspectorate that it comes from phosphate fertiliser manufacture.  Therefore it is still the same poisonous muck that YARA International supplied up to 2016 to England and it still contains carcinogens and heavy metals.  

We are not allowed to copy material from the relevant British Standard (BSEN 12175) but the following is a list from p.8 of the Chemical Parameters (contaminants) in the acid:

Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Selenium. (The latter is beneficial)

There are other contaminants present but the British Standard states that these don't matter because they are not found in the original feedstock (phosphate rock).  So that's alright then!  Although all appear in your drinking water in minute concentrations, and a glass of water is not going to make you ill, remember that you're drinking the stuff 24/7, 52 weeks of the year for a lifetime so the bioaccumulation is bound to have negative effects on your health.   However, if you're amongst the 1-2% of people who are sensitised to fluoride, you will become almost immediately ill with 'minor' illnesses such as eczema, hives, headaches and dicky tummies.  After 9 months in the womb you will be born with reduced intelligence and possibly with ADHD.  If you are bottle-fed using fluoridated tap water, the assault on your intelligence continues and you will start bio-accumulating fluoride in your permanent teeth which will cause dental fluorosis.  After 30 years or so, the chances are that you will experience low thyroid, particularly since most UK residents are low in iodide.

There is a new report which links low iodide and fluoride ingestion with hypothyroidism.  We knew this was the case and this piece of research confirms our suspicions.  LINK  This is a 'free to view' research report.

15th October 2018:  Research pointing to harm to our children from fluoride now coming thick and fast.

A succint summary of three recent pieces of research has just been published on-line by Scoop.  All three establish a link between fluoride and harm to children.  LINK  Isn't it time that the UK Government sat up and took notice?  Ah no - the Government can't do that because it has delegated responsibility to the local authorities - presumably in an effort to divide and conquer opposition to its daft Water Fluoridation policy. 


14th October 2018:  Increase in crumbling hypomineralised second primary molars (HSPM) in fluoridated Australia.

According to an Australian Journal (The Conversation), "up to 14% of pre-schoolers may have “hypomineralised second primary molars” (HSPM), where the enamel (outer layer) of the second baby molars doesn’t develop properly, making them weak and prone to damage."  LINK 

The author's hypothesis is that the weak enamel which is formed halfway through gestation is caused by maternal illness, smoking and alcohol.  Since these teeth erupt at age 2, they are exposed to systemic fluoride for 2 years 4 months while still under the gum.  4-5 months gestation plus 24 months post-natal is an appreciable time for damage to occur while the baby is in the womb and by fluoride in baby formula made up with fluoridated water plus fluoride in baby food and swallowed toothpaste and, if the theory is correct, skin absorption while having baby baths.

Research is definitely needed into this enamel damage which is 13.9% higher than previously recorded.   Perhaps researchers ought to start by asking if the mother was fluoridated, if the baby was given fluoridated baby formula, if the baby eats baby food made from de-boned meat and if the baby swallows its fluoridated toothpaste.  Now that could produce valuable results.

13th October 2018: Higher levels of urinary fluoride associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children

Press Release by the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health on their latest study of fluoride's neurotoxicity:   

Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City

Higher levels of urinary fluoride during pregnancy are associated with more ADHD-like symptoms in school-age children, according to University of Toronto and York University researchers.

“Our findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that the growing fetal nervous system may be negatively affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure,” said Dr. Morteza Bashash, the study’s lead author and researcher at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

The study, “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms in Children at 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico City,” published today in Environment International, analyzed data from 213 mother-child pairs in Mexico City that were part of the Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) project, which recruited pregnant women from 1994 to 2005 and has continued to follow the women and their children ever since.

Tap water and dental products have been fluoridated in communities in Canada and the United States (as well as milk and table salt in some other countries) by varying amounts for more than 60 years to prevent cavities. In recent years, fierce debate over the safety of water fluoridation — particularly for children’s developing brains — has fuelled researchers to explore the issue and provide evidence to inform national drinking water standards.

The research team — including experts from the University of Toronto, York University, the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, University of Michigan, Indiana University, the University of Washington and Harvard School of Public Health — analyzed urine samples that had been obtained from mothers during pregnancy and from their children between six and 12 years of age to reconstruct personal measures of fluoride exposure for both mother and child.

The researchers then analyzed how levels of fluoride in urine related to the child’s performance on a variety of tests and questionnaires that measure inattention and hyperactivity, and provide overall scores related to ADHD. Analyses were adjusted for other factors known to impact neurodevelopment, such as gestational age at birth, birth weight, birth order, sex, maternal marital status, smoking history, age at delivery, education, socioeconomic status and lead exposure.

“Our findings show that children with elevated prenatal exposure to fluoride were more likely to show symptoms of ADHD as reported by parents. Prenatal fluoride exposure was more strongly associated with inattentive behaviours and cognitive problems, but not with hyperactivity,” said Bashash.

This work builds off of previous research the team published on this population demonstrating that higher levels of urine fluoride during pregnancy are associated with lower scores on tests of IQ and cognition in the school-age children.

ADHD is the most common psychiatric disorder diagnosed in childhood, affecting between five and nine percent of all school-aged children.

“The symptoms of ADHD often persist into adulthood and can be impairing in daily life,” said Christine Till, Associate Professor of Psychology at York University and co-author on the study.

“If we can understand the reasons behind this association, we can then begin to develop preventive strategies to mitigate the risk,” said Till, who is also the principal investigator of another National Institutes of Health-funded grant examining fluoride exposure in a large Canadian sample of pregnant women.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funded this study.


10th October 2018:  The Environment Committee, House of Commons, UK, has published their findings regarding regulation of the Water Industry.  LINK One of their recommendations is that smart metering of water supplies should become compulsory as quickly as possible.  This is because householders need to be persuaded to stop wasting water.  However, more water is lost as leaks before it gets to our houses.  There's a target for reducing leaks but some MPs believe that the current target of a reduction of 15% by 2025 is not ambitious enough.

We are not happy about being forced to have smart meters installed because of the additional EM waves generated.  More importantly, having metered water supplies will make using Reverse Osmosis more expensive, thus reducing choice.  R/O uses more water when the system flushes minerals and chemicals out the filters and that will increase water bills.  This is not a concern for MPs who live in London or in non-fluoridated areas of the UK and we expect that it has never crossed their minds that increasing numbers of people are filtering their adulterated tap water using R/O which would make their water bills higher than normal if they have to have a compulsory water meter. 

The unknown factor is whether paying a fixed amount each year is less expensive than using metered water when the householder has a Reverse Osmosis system under the kitchen sink.  However, it would probably be more expensive to be metered if a whole house R/O system is installed.

Please exercise your democratic rights and write to your MP to protest.

Note that if a property changes hands, the water company has the right to have a water meter installed.  Therefore, the selling potential of family-sized homes is not likely to be affected by the presence of a water meter because a meter will now be installed anyway following a successful sale.

9th October 2018:  How do you detox from fluoride?  Here's a new on-line publication from the USA-based Best Osmosis Systems to help you through the process.  LINK


We're taking the opportunity to display a poster which highlights this scandalous state of affairs. (NB.  To improve readability, press CTRL and the + sign a few times.)



This website is all about a precious resource: water.   We'll be featuring the photography of Heidi Westum over the next few months by uploading her series of water droplets' photographs.

Credits: Heidi Westum (

                  Fluoride Analysis Database Service for Tap Water.

Results 2010 - 2017.  This includes analyses of Lincolnshire and Central Bedfordshire fluoridated water.  To view, click on Fluoride Analysis Database Service in the menu on the left-hand-side of this screen. 


Why is it alright to give a 3-year-old 0.25 mg fluoride in a tablet while a pregnant woman should not take these tablets but is urged to drink lots of water containing 1 mg fluoride/litre?  

Why are these 0.5mg fluoride tablets not to be used if the drinking water contains more than 0.3 mg fluoride/litre?  0.3 + 0.5 = 0.8 mg which is still less than the fluoride added to our drinking water.  

Why do the instructions urge us not exceed stated dose when every day of our lives we have to drink twice the amount of fluoride/litre than is found in each tablet?

If we drink 2 litres of fluoridated water a day, we ingest 4 times the dose of a tablet.

WHY?     WHY?      WHY?

It's alright to 'cause a stink'.


Contact if you want to do something about stopping water fluoridation.

                                   No research = no proof of safety


If you suffer from migraine, have you tried avoiding fluoridated water and ordinary every-day tea processed from Camellia sinensis leaves which contain quite a lot of natural fluoride?

The above PowerPoint slide appears in a longer Australian presentation which can be sourced at LINK      Most of Australia is fluoridated.

Dental fluorosis is damage to the  enamel of permanent teeth which have to last a lifetime.  The York Review (2000) found a prevalence in the UK of 48% when the water is dosed with 1mg fluoride/litre water.


Video on Dental Fluorosis in the USA: LINK


This child is collateral damage. We are all collateral damage because we are being used to get rid of a hazardous waste in the cheapest way possible through our bodies and via our English rivers.  Are you angry about this?

If so, contact and CAUSE A STINK!  


4th February 2018:  Today has been a good day

Despite having to deal with the intransigence of proponents of WF, some days thought-provoking information flies into our in-box.  Two particularly interesting pieces of information were received today.

Declan Waugh's letter to the Irish Examiner on 3rd February.  Irish beer contains quite a lot of fluoride since fluoridated water is used to brew beer.  Co-exposure to alcohol and fluoride results in higher risk of liver damage.  It gets worse but I'll let Declan explain the situation in his own words.  LINK

Dr Geoff Pain in Australia is a prolific researcher with papers relating to the Chemistry and Biochemistry aspects of WF.  His most recent offering is a short report on the dangers of drinking green tea.  Despite the much touted benefits of green tea drinking in the media in the past few years, the leaves also contain non-health-giving chemicals, including fluoride.  The report can be accessed via Researchgate.  Green Tea and its Fluoride Content, a Major Health Hazard.

1st February 2018:  The Surreal Chicksands Meeting  Editorial   LINK
PHE's attempt to fluoridate 15,000 people who were last fluoridated in 1996.

This page has been getting very long, so our new policy is to archive items from previous months.  Go to the side bar on the left-hand-side of this page and select the appropriate sub-page for NEWS 2018, etc.