History has been made. After 7 years of pursuing legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has just ruled on behalf of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs in our precedent-setting court case. A U.S. federal court has now deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children, and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. The decision is written very strongly in our favor, and we will share it in its entirety tomorrow. Below is an excerpt from the introduction of the ruling:
"The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children..the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response...One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk."
I do not disagree that 0.7 mg?L is too much, the data supports this. But the difference between a cure and a poison is the dosage.
What level is considered "beneficial" for preventing tooth decay, yet not harmful? Or is this a case that, like lead (Pb) or mercury (Hg), there is no safe dosage?
Ingesting flouride does not prevent tooth decay. Proper diet and oral hygeine prevents tooth decay. Some topical application of flouride may temporarily protect teeth from improper diet and/or poor oral hygeine.
So the optimal dosage of flouride in drinking water is none.