What’s Happened Since A Judge Ruled Water Fluoridation Is Lowering IQ?
Tyler Durden

Though Dr. Mark Burhenne has been railing against water fluoridation on his social media accounts and his “Ask the Dentist” podcast, he never thought he’d see it banned from so many public water supplies in his lifetime.

A landmark ruling in September that directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the “unreasonable” risk fluoride in drinking water poses to lowering IQ in children has become a tipping point, Berhenne told The Epoch Times in an email. The decision has motivated large numbers of local and state governments to ban fluoride in their water supplies.

“Change like this isn’t going to happen overnight, but this was the kind of momentum we’ve been waiting for,” he said. “I didn’t think I’d see this kind of progress on fluoride in my lifetime, but now? I think it’s possible. It’ll take time—decades, maybe—but the wheels are turning.”

Utah is set to be the first state to ban fluoride in drinking water. At the same time, at least 50 communities nationwide have removed fluoride from water—representing about 4.5 million people—according to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). Florida is considering legislation to prevent local governments from adding it to water supplies, and several states are considering reversals of fluoridation mandates.

The chain reaction on the local level is obscured by silence on the federal level, where decades of denials and obfuscation have clouded the contentious public health issue. It remains unresolved and unaddressed, even as new research confirms fluoride health risks. There may be legal loose ends as well. Three days before President Trump took office, EPA’s acting administrator Jane Nishida filed an appeal of the federal court decision under pressure from dental organizations.

Stakeholders Respond

The Epoch Times reached out to the EPA to ask whether it is pursuing the appeal or if it is pursuing action related to the court’s findings.

An agency spokesperson didn’t address specific questions but replied, “In keeping with a longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on pending litigation.”

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco issued an 80-page ruling in September, which stated “the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA.”

*  *  *

Filter fluoride out of your water here…

Use code THANKYOU10 for 10% off

*  *  *

Chen did not order a specific course of action. Currently, the government recommends a fluoride level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in drinking water for the prevention of tooth decay.

“Community water fluoridation is a practical, cost-effective, and equitable way for communities to improve oral health regardless of age, education, or income by preventing cavities. This results in less mouth pain, fewer fillings or teeth pulled, and fewer missed days of work and school,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The lawsuit was filed in 2017 by several nonprofits led by environmental advocacy organization Food & Water Watch. Chen paused the suit in 2020 to wait for a National Toxicology Program report that was in the works, which was published in August, showing a link between higher amounts of fluoride exposure and a lower IQ in children. The findings were based on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water or approximately 1.4 mg/L.

The American Dental Association (ADA) and other organizations wrote a letter to Nishida requesting the appeal one week before it was filed, noting that the CDC hailed water fluoridation as a top public health achievement, reducing cavities by 25 percent.

“It would be regrettable to compromise nearly 80 years of public health success due to challenges in effectively communicating the science, which often extends beyond the simplicity of a sound bite,” the organizations wrote.

The ADA did not reply to The Epoch Times for an interview request.

Burhenne countered that the EPA’s appeal was surprising in light of overwhelming data.

“It’s hard to see it as anything but a stall tactic. Honestly, it feels like ego is driving their actions at this point, and it’s frustrating,” he said.

The lawsuit findings are sufficient to end water fluoridation, according to Stuart Cooper, executive director of FAN, which was a plaintiff in the suit. The EPA has two years to devise a tactic for protecting the vulnerable from fluoride risks. The neurotoxic effects of fluoride are more prevalent in formula-fed infants, African Americans, and undernourished people.

Cooper said new EPA rules could be designed either to ban municipalities from buying fluoride—which is a manmade chemical form of the mineral—or somehow inform every pregnant woman of the risks to fetal and child development from drinking fluoridated water. The latter seems so out of reach that Cooper doesn’t conceive any option outside of ceasing the practice.

Other federal agencies could also step in and take action, Cooper told The Epoch Times, including the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which sets fluoride limits in drinking water and is headed by long-time fluoride opponent Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

our mission:

to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.

...responsibly used.

The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.

 

 

www.zerohedge.com