According to the latest estimates cited in the Spokesman-Review, Spokane faces a looming budget deficit in the general fund of $20 - $24 million.

We’ve already addressed the skyrocketing costs of fluoridation and how it would rob the city of badly needed funds for police, fire, homeless, housing and other major expenses.

But no matter the financial costs, even if it was free, the human costs and suffering are incalculable.

We’ve already provided extensive documentation on the overwhelming scientific evidence that fluoridated water can significantly lower children’s IQs (https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/FAN-Neurotoxicity-flyer-5-23-23-B-Final.pdf), but this is only one of many serious harmful effects of fluoridation.

Here are two personal stories of Washington residents harmed by their hypersensitivity to ingestion of fluoride.

Spokane resident Catherine Mangis, whose brief statement is at: Catherine Mangis Statement , and Seattle resident Julie Simms, whose short video from Safe Water Spokane’s 2000 forum is at https://safewaterspokane.org/forum (scroll down – sixth speaker), will tell you how they have suffered from fluoride ingestion – and why each of their personal physicians have advised them to avoid it.

The National Academy of Science’s comprehensive review Fluoride in Drinking Water cited several studies on hypersensitivity. It’s estimated to affect at least 1% of the population. That means that at least 2,200 Spokane residents would be at immediate risk if fluoridation was forced on them from this alone.

How can anyone justify harming thousands of people? How can anyone call fluoridation “safe?”

Safe Water Spokane has released its survey of cavity rates in Washington, comparing Spokane to other counties in the state. These data, in the attached table, were gathered from several different published sources, and, as far as we know, have not been compiled anywhere else.

There are three major take-aways:

1. There are NO data available comparing cavity rates city to city. Statements from fluoridation promoters saying Spokane has higher cavity rates than fluoridated cities have no published statistical foundation.

2. Of the 20 counties where cavity rates were recorded (% of 3rd graders with caries), Spokane ranked in the middle, 9th out of 20th. There were no strong correlations with fluoridation one way or the other. For instance, Yakima, Franklin, and Benton counties all have their largest cities fluoridated (Yakima, Pasco, and Kennewick), but all have higher cavity rates than Spokane county.

3. The strongest correlation was between highest household income and lowest cavity rates, part of a widely-recognized nationwide trend. The five counties with the lowest cavity rates (San Juan, King, Clark, Pierce and Thurston) ranked 15th, 1st, 5th, 4th and 7th respectively in household income out of the 39 Washington counties.

Even these statistics have to be taken with a word of caution. The most recent county cavity rate data available are from the Washington Smile Survey of 2015-16. A more recent Smile Survey may be coming out in the near future.

Bottom line, there are many factors that affect cavity rates, in addition to household income. They include genetics, diet, home dental hygiene practices and access to professional dental care. Fluoridation has a very minor, if any, effect, far outweighed by its serious health risks, high costs and threats to neighborhoods.

Statistical survey - Safe Water Spokane - 9-15-23

It’s time to debunk the claim from fluoridation supporters that savings from fluoridation in preventing cavities exceed its costs.

That claim is based on incomplete or misleading information that leaves out several inconvenient truths. The exorbitant costs of fluoridation far exceed any minimal (if any) benefits it may provide. Please compare:

What they say: Fluoridation is “effective.” It reduces cavities by 25%.

What they don’t say: There is a consensus that fluoride’s preventive action on cavities is mostly topical, not from swallowing. Many studies have found effectiveness far less than this or none at all. But even this highly questionable 25% claim only equates to an average of one half a cavity per child. And data from the World Health Organization show that nations that don’t fluoridate have the same cavity rates as nations that do.

What they say: For every dollar spent on fluoridation, $24 - $38 is saved by reducing dental costs.

What they don’t say: Not one of any of the studies showing cost effectiveness take into account costs of harmful health effects from fluoridation, including hypothyroidism, kidney damage, diabetes, chemical sensitivities, fluorosis or IQ loss.

What they say: Fluoridation increases fluorosis rates, but fluorosis is only barely visible white streaks or spotting. It’s merely “cosmetic.”

What they don’t say: Many fluorosis cases cause permanent yellow or brown discoloration and damage to tooth structure that can require thousands of dollars in treatment costs to fix. This was documented in a major paper co-authored by an economist and one of the leading risk assessment expert scientists in the country that debunked the original article saying that fluoridation was cost-effective (Ko/Thiessen) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000093 .

What they say: “The best available science-based evidence does not establish a causal relationship between consumption of water fluoridated at recommended levels and lowered intelligence (IQ) or behavioral disorders in children.” (American Dental Association: “Fluoridation Facts,” p. 62)

What they don’t say: The most recent scientific source ADA cites is from 2015, ignoring the significantly stronger studies completed since then. The latest 2023 National Toxicology Program report documented that 52 out of 55 studies linked higher fluoride with lower IQs. Eighteen out of 19 of the highest-quality studies found this link (https://fluoridealert.org/articles/national-toxicology-program-finds-no-safe-level-of-fluoride-in-drinking-water-water-fluoridation-policy-threatened/). Several of the strongest studies, many at levels in fluoridated water, have shown that fluoridation-linked IQ losses can average 3-5 IQ points.

What they also don’t say: A 2021 review of numerous studies from the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities found that a loss of just 1 IQ point is associated with lifetime income losses to individuals of $10,600–$13,100. (Grosse and Zhou https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/8/5/352) Another estimate determined nearly $18,000 in lifetime earnings lost for every one IQ point loss (Bellinger https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339460/).

Fluoridation’s $11 million capital costs, $1.8 – $2.4 million annual chemical costs and 3-5% increase to ratepayers are just as excessive as the sticker shock suggests. There are no cost savings, only severe budget burdens to the city and our ratepayers.

As always, please feel free to contact us with any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

Safe Water Spokane

The major reason Safe Water Spokane opposes fluoridation is its scientifically documented health risks, including brain damage/IQ loss, hypothyroidism, severe headaches, gastrointestinal distress, fatigue and other harmful effects from chemical sensitivities, fluorosis and many others.

We’d be opposed to fluoridation chemicals at any cost, even if they were free or subsidized. But the June 22, 2023 report to the city council revealed just how over-the-top expensive fluoridation would be, as determined by the official feasibility study:

Capital cost estimate: $10,999,000

Annual operating cost estimate: $1,827,400 - $2,375,700

Water rate increase estimate: 3-5%

Please remember the cost estimates given by the city just three years ago:

Capital cost estimate: $4,000,000

Annual operating cost estimate: $600,000

Water rate increase estimate: 2%

And because Spokane’s water system is so decentralized and complex, the system couldn’t even be completed and started until 2028. Moreover, the long-term costs of maintenance were estimated at between $61 million and $74 million (see below), with an annual suggested budgeted amount of $9.18 million. Even not figuring in long-term costs, the estimates above have skyrocketed between 200% and nearly 400% in just three years. How much higher will they go in the next five years?

There were more revelations. Expanded industrial facilities would have to be built right in the middle of numerous Spokane residential neighborhoods. They would be supplied continuously by large tanker truck traffic filled with liquid hexafluorosilicic acid, introducing the risk of dangerous chemical spills.

Please note this fluoridation chemical is not the fluoride you get in your toothpaste. Instead - and this is a matter of public record - it’s officially designated as a hazardous waste material, and can often be contaminated with lead or arsenic (Source: NSF International – the same organization supposedly assuring its safety https://d2evkimvhatqav.cloudfront.net/documents/Fluoride_Fact_Sheet_2019.pdf?v=1594928618.) These contaminants may be under legal limits and NSF says the levels aren’t “significant.” We emphatically disagree. There are no safe levels of lead and arsenic and knowingly adding these brain damaging chemicals is significant to us. We hope it is to you too. No chemicals should be added to the drinking water if they’re not confirmed safe, and it’s documented that these aren’t.

The costs of fluoridation – both in human health risks and to the city’s budget – are staggering. How many other city services – police, fire, schools, libraries, roads, etc. – would have to be cut back to pay for it?

This simply doesn’t make any sense. There are several alternatives to fluoridation at a fraction of the cost that pose none of the risks. Moreover, they’re more effective in preventing cavities, could be started years earlier, and would be embraced by the entire community, instead of embroiling it in controversy.

Last year, the University of California – San Francisco commissioned a survey that captures not only Safe Water Spokane’s feelings toward fluoridation, but the feelings of nearly all Spokane’s residents.

It found that “92% of voters agree and 63% of voters strongly agree that the government should require products be proven safe before companies are allowed to put them on the market.”

The survey question cited people’s strong objections to products from “companies,” but it’s safe to assume people would have just as strong objections to products from the government – in this case, the city of Spokane. And though it’s a nationwide poll, it would also apply to Spokane’s residents. Oversamples of minority respondents were designed to ensure the results were representative of the U.S. voting population.

Rarely, if ever, do we see that 92% of Americans agree on anything. This is as close to a consensus as you get.

Actually, it shouldn’t be all that surprising. It’s just common sense that has been passed down for generations: Better safe than sorry. And for physicians, First do no harm.

Tracey Woodruff, PhD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF, said “The good news is this survey reveals overwhelming support for the government to do a better job of protecting people from harmful chemicals.”

It’s really this simple:

Fluoridation should be proven safe before it’s allowed.

Fluoridation hasn’t been proven safe.

Therefore, it shouldn’t be allowed.

And when we say fluoridation hasn’t been proven safe, that’s the understatement of the year. To take just one health risk out of many – IQ loss in children – the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) recently-released meta-analysis found that 52 out of 55 studies linked higher fluoride with lower IQs –over 94% - For the highest-quality studies, 18 out of 19 found this link – nearly 95%. In other words, a near consensus on its lack of safety.

NTP also asserted “We have no basis on which to state that our findings are not relevant to some children or pregnant people in the United States . . . Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in optimally fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas . . .”

Opposing fluoridation is our opportunity to protect Spokane’s citizens. It’s our opportunity to stand with science, not with authority figures that deny that science.

It’s our opportunity to be on the right side of history.

The “People’s Pharmacy” syndicated column from last week’s Spokesman-Review said, in part, “A systematic analysis of 10 studies concluded: ‘The study has shown a positive correlation between fluoride and hypothyroidism, which is an alarming issue.’”

And it’s not just from higher levels of fluoride – it’s from fluoridation. The column continues: “A recent study from Canada, in this Canadian pregnancy and birth cohort, fluoride in drinking water was associated with primary hypothyroidism in pregnant women.”

The science on fluoride’s causing lowered thyroid function is nothing new. As far back as the 1940’s, fluoride was being used to treat patients with hyperthyroidism (elevated thyroid function). And the landmark National Research Council’s (NRC) 2006 review, Fluoride in Drinking Water, concluded, unequivocally, that “Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function . . . and “The chief endocrine effects of fluoride include decreased thyroid function . . .”

Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, is the president of the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis. She’s done work for the EPA, CDC, National Institutes of Health, the governments of Japan and South Korea, and served as a consultant for the International Atomic Energy Agency. She’s considered one of the top experts in the country on environmental contaminants and was one of the 12 members of the NRC’s blue-ribbon committee for the 2006 fluoride review.

Dr. Thiessen said that figures calculated from the NRC report show that a 140-pound pregnant woman with iodine deficiency would only have to drink 0.9 liters per day of fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) to be at increased risk of impaired thyroid function. The National Institutes of Health estimated that half of pregnant women in the U.S. have iodine deficiency.

As she stated in the continuing lawsuit against the EPA in federal court, “A decrease in thyroid function during pregnancy, even in the absence of clinical symptoms in the mother, is associated with reduced IQ and other neurological effects in the offspring.” Bottom line, fluoridation poses a serious health risk to both pregnant women and their children.

And yet we continue to hear from fluoridation advocates such as the CDC, American Dental Association, Arcora Foundation (Delta Dental) and their followers that it’s been proven safe for everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth and Safe Water Spokane will continue to speak this truth to their power.