Utah questions Water Fluoridation

With the “Safe Drinking utah-state-sealWater Disclosure Act” – H.B. 72 – the state of Utah is holding the companies that “fluoridate” Utah’s drinking water accountable for pouring tramp contaminants such as lead and aluminum into the water along with the paid-for industrial waste, fluoride, in fluoridation batches.

Utah: Show us the Toxic Poisons

Like most states, Utah uses taxpayer dollars to pay chemical companies to dump fluoride batches into its drinking water under the notion that the hazardous waste  helps prevent dental caries. But unlike most states, Utah questions toxic fluoridation. The state has just discovered that it is receiving many extra toxins – tramp contaminants – at no extra charge, along with its monthly medicinal batches from fluoride chemicals. Utah is becoming the first state to question the safety and efficacy of paying chemical companies to dump toxic waste into its drinking water.


Governor Herbert Signs H.B. 72

Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill last week that requires chemical companies to fully disclose all the chemicals and contaminants they are dumping into Utah’s water along with the toxic fluoride which has been represented for more than 60 years across the U.S. as a means of preventing dental caries. The bill – H.B. 72 – is not designed to permanently stop water fluoridation or make a statement about whether fluoride’s rewards (its alleged dental caries-fighting properties) outweighs its risks for causing various types of cancer, osteoporosis, MS and a host of other diseases. The bill is simply designed to force companies such as Thatcher and Mosaic Chemical to disclose exactly what is contained in each batch of fluoridation chemicals being dumped in Utah’s drinking water.

Toxic Spills unveiled Tramp Contaminants

The fluoridation companies came under intense scrutiny after Utah’s analysis of various spills and releases of the fluoridation chemicals revealed that in addition to fluoride, there were several other “tramp” chemicals far in excess of allowable limits for safe drinking water – chemicals that included aluminum, arsenic, lead, mercury and berillium which, when mixed with fluoride, become especially active and dangerous to human health.

On Aug. 31, 2007, when 2,500 gallons of raw acid were released at a Utah water treatment plant, the cost of the cleanup brought the attention of Utah law enforcement and the eventual realization that despite many millions of dollars being spent by Utah to fluoridate its water, the state had no idea what exactly was being dumped into its water supply along with the fluoridation chemicals. Utah discovered it was getting way more than it had bargained for.

Toxins must now be Disclosed

The new bill requires any company “fluoridating” Utah’s water to disclose precisely what chemicals are in the fluoridation batches. The bill also lets each county or township vote on whether it wishes to fluoridate its water.

Tramp Contaminants at no extra charge

The big question now is whether it is even possible to separate fluoride from the other toxic chemicals, tramp contaminants, that are gathered in the process of mining fluoride in order to put it in the drinking water or scraping the fluoride from industrial waste sources to put it in the water.


•  EPA Earnestly Poisoning Americans

•  Utah questions Water Fluoridation

  1. The Safe Water Disclosure Act is an excellent means of alerting people to the many other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals including heavy metals and other neurotoxic and carcinogenic substances. But people need to focus on the intended other uses of for example fluorosilicic acid, the substance of choice in most water supplies. Product suppliers list these other uses as treatment of metal or glass surface, indicating an industrial product. Ask yourself then how could such a product also be used for the medical purpose of treating people to supposedly prevent tooth decay.
    The answer explains why the FDA has never licensed this product for consumption either as a food or a medicine — in fact the FDA considers fluorosilicic acid ‘an unapproved new drug’. The health authorities promoting this unapproved new drug have a lot to answer for. Before introducing any of these products into people’s tap water, the water suppliers targeted by this Act should be forced to demand answers to this vital question.

    • Having fought and failed to rid New Zealand of this toxic addition to water, I am delighted that since the USA started this hare an American looks likely to stop it, with the help of a few others. Heads ought to roll in high places for the damage done to many people the world over because of this inexcusable usage of such a toxic substance.

      Bill Wilson

  2. Well, it would be next to (if not) impossible the clean up the fluoridation chemicals.

    Aside from the above, if it were possible to process the nasty stuff out, the processes would make it cost prohibitive to fluoridate the drinking water.

    If they used a decent grade instead of industrial waste, the costs would also be cost prohibitive.

    The reason they use the toxic waste is because it’s cheap.

    • I gather the best course would then be to stay out of the water fluoridation game all together if they are incapable of supplying a clean product.

      This would leave fluoride application up to toothpastes and mouth rinses where they might actually be effective, and used if desired.


      • That is exactly right. There is no way to control the tramp contaminants. It is not possible to isolate the one lethal poison – fluoride – without bring all the tramp contaminants along. The industrial waste that is fluoride can’t help but to bring the tramps along.

      • That is exactly right. There is no way to control the tramp contaminants. It is not possible to isolate the one lethal poison – fluoride – without bringing all the tramp contaminants along for the ride. The train car of industrial waste that is fluoride can’t keep the tramps from riding along. This is the death knell for fluoride, even if gov’t and industry shills continue the big, neverending lie about fluoride fighting cavities.

  3. A scientific report (142 pages & 496 References) published in February shows how premature death and severe health problems are far greater for all ages in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland (ROI) compared to unfluoridated Northern Ireland (NI) or other unfluoridated European countries.

    Increased disease in ROI include:

    early onset dementia (450%),
    sudden infant death syndrome (300%),
    sarcoidosis (250%),
    congenital hypothyroidism (220%),
    osteoporosis (100%)
    Etc., etc.

    The World Health Organisation has also reported that the overall
    incidence of cancer per 100,000 in the RoI is 85% above the European region average, 43% above the EU average.

    The review is here: http://tinyurl.com/cf7zmo5
    For a quick overview, look at the graphs on pages 8, 12 and 14.

    • Mark,

      This issue generally doesn’t have political allies with alot of backbone. Unless you know you’ve got the votes and well established lobbyists to work behind the scenes, I’d recommend you wait and see what happens here before you introduce legislation. If we make serious progress in Utah, the bad guys will pull out all the stops in their attempts to kill your legislation. This has taken 12 years to get to this point with 3 feet worth of Freedom of Information documents to support it. If I were you, I’d suggest the your legislators offer to make a report this coming summer during the interim session (if you have one)You can sell this as a reasonable and rational evaluation of what happened in Utah and why then frame your legislation accordingly. Good luck.

  4. It’s so refreshing to see a governor take the responsibility of water stewardship seriously. Utah is fortunate to have such a governor.

    Our city council in Windsor Ontario just voted to eliminate artificial fluoridation. Our mayor is a lawyer with a combined degree in chemistry and biochemistry. With Windsor’s vote, 67% of Canadians have now chosen fluoride-free drinking water. The trend is growing.

  5. This is incredible. We are fighting a fluoridation battle here in Portland, Oregon, where we currently enjoy some of the purest, unfiltered water in the US.

    I wasn’t anti-fluoride until a majority of the city council had a press conference one day and said they all supported fluoridation and that they’d be passing a bill to make it so within a few weeks. This was done behind closed doors, with lobbyists, without any public hearings.

    The city then had one day of testimony before all five city counsel members voted “YES.” A volunteer group filed a referendum and turned in over 44,000 valid signatures, more than double the required amount, in 29 days (1 day less than allowed). The referendum was to be held May 2014.

    Not to be blocked, the city council used their authority to move the election up to May 2013, so we are in the heat of the battle right now.

    What I’ve found shocking is how the pro-fluoridation side just lies, and lies, and lies. They’ll claim there is no evidence of harm, that fluoridation chemicals from industrial waste are exactly like pure fluoride, etc. etc.

    As I’ve spent countless hours researching this topic, it is nice to see the table turning on the practice of using the water system to disperse chemicals.

    It is very inspiring that Utah passed this bill.

    When this first started it seemed like David v Goliath because we had no resources and were up against most of the Democratic establishment. But now I’m pretty confident we will win.

    We have people and money on our side, they have mostly money and paid staff. I’m not sure if they have ANY grassroots help.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you UTAH, you have helped inspire me/us even more.

    • I am a graduate student publishing a position paper on the dangers of community water fluoridation, and examining the lack of due process and informed consent by the public. I am continually outraged, yet the overwhelming question I have is WHY do the constituents have to be ignored and bullied against their decision to REJECT fluoride by the community leaders? Can anyone point out the money trail here?
      So glad Utah is realizing what is happening!

      • The money trail winds like a poison snake across the country. Check out Christopher Bryson’s book “The Fluoride Deception,” which is remarkably well researched. Bryson traces the money trail to all the usual industry suspects that used the fluorine lawyers committee (I think was their name) and other corporate shills to give fluoride a complete makeover and establish a “good” use for it so that it could be dumped (at a tidy profit to industry, of course) into our drinking water. Research Utah history, especially, where you can find out how many companies were in “hot water” there (pun intended) as a result of their projects with fluoride that caused huge amounts of damage. They didn’t like the litigation exposure, so they found a way to make people love their poison, by forcefeeding it to them, with the feed tube provided by the EPA, CDC, as well as the ADA.

        • Thanks for the suggestion on Bryson’s book, just finished watching Fluoridegate. Emotionally drained and shaking my fists. I understand one hand washes the other, but what is the incentive for a water district to pay for hydrofluorosilicic acid and the added cost for personnel and equipment? I’m thinking it, but what are your thoughts?

          • Robin, The financial incentives will make more sense when you read Bryson’s book. You can also see an excellent 30 minute video interview of Bryson here:


            For dentists, the ADA, doctors, and water systems, there don’t appear to be any $ benefits to pushing fluoridation.

            Basically, they were unwitting accomplices early on in the 1940s and 1950s and inertia has kept them going. One could argue that dentists and the ADA will benefit financially from the dental fluorosis caused by fluoridation. Over 40% of American kids now have it, and in some it is serious enough that expensive cosmetic dentistry is needed to correct it. Even for the milder forms, many people would prefer not to have it and might try the currently popular whitening or other methods to try to fix it. Dentists might make more money from these cosmetic procedures than from any loss of business filling cavities. In fact, the latest science shows there is no statistically significant reduction in cavities from ingested fluoride, so it may be an illusion that dentists are giving up any business by promoting fluoridation.

            As for government agencies, especially those related to public health, the “financial incentive” is actually the loss of credibility they would suffer it they ever admit fluoridation was a mistake. This may be mostly a loss of power for such agencies, but it can translate into reduced budgets or individuals identified with promoting fluoridation having lowered career prospects.

            For scientists and other researchers who depend on government grants, if fluoridation is discredited, they stand to lose substantial amounts. Federal research grants from NIDCR for example, go almost exclusively to research by those who are in favor of fluoridation.

            The people who have the largest vested interest in fluoridation remain several large industries. The phosphate fertilizer industry in particular, but also the aluminum, steel, chemical industry and nuclear weapons/ nuclear energy industries. All of these have had very expensive liabilities for fluoride pollution and harm to workers in the past. They have manufactured the fig-leaf of water fluoridation to deflect attention from the harm their own products and processes causes via fluoride. They don’t want that fig-leaf to be stripped away from them.

          • Robin

            In Utah, the water agencies didn’t want to do this. This was an agenda item financed then driven by the health department. Before the question was put to the voter, the water agencies hadn’t even been consulted. And once the vote was taken, the water agencies had no choice but to implement. It was a very costly unfunded mandate. One city formally complained to the County Commissioners that the health department intentionally low-balled the cost of implementation because getting a yes vote to fluoride was more important then telling the voter the truth. Another city balked because of the cost and the Health Department threatened to withhold their property taxes unless they complied. One court document revealed the interim health department director referring to fluoride as ‘a stealth campaign’ If anyone should be screaming bloody murder about it, it should be the water agencies and the men and women who have to handle this stuff. Granted, in their mission to deliver safe and clean drinking water, water agencies have other hazardous substances they handle. But this is an elective. And a very dangerous one at that.

          • In the past, I think each district gets a $60,000 grant from the CDC, and most people running their water municipalities aren’t smart enough to figure out that in the long run fluoride is eating their infrastructure, leaching lead and more from pipes, tanks, processors, etc., costing them millions in extra maintenance. They’re made to feel stupid, Neanderthal, perhaps, by the CDC shills if they refuse to “help” their citizens fight cavities. Unfortunately it seems the smartest, most principled people seldom attain gov’t positions. It’s all been a Goebbels’operation, to tell one lie big enough and often enough that eventually most will believe it. Israel just banned fluoridation, so somebody is paying attention.

    • Please feel free to send it around to anyone you like. It’s an original blog that I wrote, and you have my permission to publish any or all of it anywhere you like. There’s been a mainstream media blackout on the perils of fluoridation chemicals for far too long. — Richard Matthews

  6. I stopped drinking Auckland’s artificially fluoridated tap water on 20th October 2012 and have had 10 complaints disappear and 2 improve 85 – 95% in the past 5+ months.
    Watercare, that provides the water on behalf of Auckland Council, and following guidelines as provided by the Ministry of Health with the sanction of WHO, and my GP, and Auckland Regional Health and the National Poison Centre all deny it is from the fluoride but cannot provide any other explanation.
    Looking on the Ministry of Health’s own website http://www.health.govt.nz I noted that from 2001 to 2011 that the percentage of 12 year old children caries free had risen 14.37% in the non-fluoridated areas and only 8.09% in the fluoridated groups.
    This would suggest that in fact artificial fluoridation is actually detrimental to dental health.
    Furthermore the report issued by Declan Waugh in February 2013, examining the health in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland compared to the fluoridated Republic of Ireland and other countries, and considering the review by the US National Research Council (2006), indicates fluoride is also harmful to the rest of the body . . . and mind!
    It is heart breaking to read and think how much unnecessary suffering is being inflicted on millions of people in the name of dental health . . . I was so bad that I really thought I was on the way out and had to rev myself up to do even the simplest things like get out of bed in the morning . . . now I look forward to another day and loads of activity that was beyond me just 6 months ago . . . :}

  7. Get the fluoride out as well!!! You would think all top gov’t officials (mayors, governors, the POTUS) would read up on how we ended up w/ fluoride in our water to begin with and then put an immediate ban on that toxin!

    We’ve all been hoodwinked, bamboozled, scammed!

  8. Sadly, these chemical companies have gotten away with murder over the last 5 to 6 decades.

    Their solution to pollution is dilution and on top of that, they don’t have to pay to dispose of it, they actually profit from the sale.

    Stop using your body as a filter!

    • English writer Christopher Bryson puts it all together in his fine book, The Fluoride Deception. He covers the whole nasty history of fluoridation and all the subterfuge worked by the unholy marriage between industry and government to poison the whole country’s water supply with fluoride and other toxins. There’s nothing theoretical about any of it. Check out that book for the facts and the history the mainstream media always fails to let out of the bag.

  9. Not being an attorney, I wonder why, given the alarming results from their analysis of the fluoride from the spills, that Gov. Herbert did not also order a “Cease and Desist” while giving the fluoride suppliers until July 1 to respond.

  10. So far this bill – signed into law by the Governor – has received ZERO publicity in the mainstream media.


    I know that it has only been a week or so since the signing, but one would think that at least one community would have jumped on the opportunity to have the Health Department stop the fluoride pumps.

    66 (iv) provides fluoride in compliance with applicable NSF/ANSI Standard 60
    67 certification requirements.
    128 (10) A local health department shall:
    129 (a) order the temporary removal of fluoride from a public water system within the
    130 boundaries of the local health department if the public water system:

    I guess we should give them some time . The health dept. has to ask the water provider to provide the studies, then the water co. has to ask the supplier for the documents and then send them all back up the the same chin they came down.

    I guess emails travel as slowly as snail mail!!!

    Will the Health Departments do this voluntarily? I bet not, because it would go against “policy” as Dr. Kennedy puts it. I predict that “someone” is going to have to force the issue.

    Will the water providers stop fluoridation without being forced by the HD? That remains to be seen. Do they have an obligation to turn off the F- flow until they receive the tox studies ? They know, at this very moment, that they are in non-compliance of the law because they do not have the necessary documentation from the supplier.

    Then there is the language about voting to remove or keep fluoridation.
    Seems to me that will be a moot point because there is no documentation and therefore it is already illegal!! Can a community vote to break the law?? I think not!!

    Every state that subscribes to ANSI/NSF Standard 60 is already breaking the law because of the lack of documentation of the tox studies that are required by NSF themselves!! Is this legislation really even needed???

  11. Where can I go to sign up for the lawsuit? Thyroid Cancer at the age of 35 RIGHT AFTER I HAD A BABY! Hell hath no fury…Hypothyroidism ran in my family, but no cancer till me…I drank fluoridated water for 3 years, Prozac for 4 years. And my predecessors did not. Fluoride depresses Thyroid Hormone, this raises TSH, which then tells the Thyroid Gland, “Grow Tissue, Grow Tissue!”. The Thyroid Gland complies, and then you get Goiter and Thyroid Nodules. Thyroid Nodules then have the potential to become cancerous. Voila! Fluoride causes the conditions that enable Thyroid Cancer to happen. I am so ready to sue the hell out of whoever is responsible for this fluoridation deception. Bring it on!!!!!!!

  12. I would like a similar Bill to be placed on the Chinese producers of fluorides! Only Communists would ignore such a Bill and they would probably be allowed to by the government!


  13. That would make sense, so you know it probably won’t happen. Proponents of fluoridating water live in a parallel universe, one in which they understand that dumping hazardous toxic waste into the water is good for us all. These are the guardians of our health, these geniuses, God help us.

  14. Great to here progress is being made in Utah! Ironic that when there’s progress in one Area another City like Portland is fighting to keep fluoride out. Just like Calgary,AB. Canada stopped fluoridation in 2011 now there are fluoride proponents claiming that there is a dental crisis.Thank God there are anti fluoride activists:myself included trying to stop this mass poisoning. Here in Saskatoon SK. Canada THEY JUST BUILT A NEW FLUORIDATION SYSTEM $250,000. & OUR CITY COUNCIL HAS THEY’RE HEAD IN THE SAND BUT WE ARE HOME TO Poatsh Corp. of Saskatchewan owner of Mosaic & Aurora Mine so we have an uphill battle here. Our hats are off to James Robert Deal & The Mathews Law Firm for standing up to these tyrants.

  15. FYI: I have a request into the CDC to find out the procedure for fluoride damage compensation.


    Email # 1 response back from CDC:

    May 8, 2013

    fluoride compensation program [ ref:_00DU0YCBU._500U07cSF8:ref ]

    Thank you for your submission to CDC-INFO regarding a fluoride compensation program.

    Your comments have been forwarded to the CDC Division of Oral Health (DOH) for their information. They will contact you directly if they have questions.

    Thank you for contacting CDC-INFO. For more information, please call 1-800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) or visit http://www.cdc.gov/info.

    CDC-INFO is a service of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This service is provided by Verizon and its subcontractors under the Networx Universal contract to CDC and ATSDR.


    fluoride compensation program

    5/6/2013 12:53 PM

    Kathleen Corkett
    [email protected]

    Caller would like to have a fluoride compensation program set up and have her experience be the first case study. Who would she get in touch with in order to have this happen? Caller would like to get in touch with someone with authority and job title and legal authority to be able to act on this.



    Email #2 response from CDC:

    May 9, 2013

    FW: fluoride compensation program [ ref:_00DU0YCBU._500U07cSF8:ref ]

    Ms. Corkett, This recommendation has been received by the CDC Division of Oral Health. We will be speaking with others within the agency, and will let you know who the appropriate parties are.

    CDC Division of Oral Health


    fluoride compensation program

    5/6/2013 12:53 PM

    Kathleen Corkett
    [email protected]

    Caller would like to have a fluoride compensation program set up and have her experience be the first case study. Who would she get in touch with in order to have this happen? Caller would like to get in touch with someone with authority and job title and legal authority to be able to act on this.



  16. Good to hear what others are doing. Here in California, the Sonoma County Public Health Officer(!) Lynn Silver-Chalfin, is vigorously promoting fluoridation, and telling lies (“Fluoride is a necessary nutrient like Vitamin A and sodium Chloride.” “Fluoride is safe and effective”) while refusing to look at the science. She is accompanied by longtime fluoridation pushers Howard Pollick, DDS, Ernest Newbrun, DDS, and Marjorie Stocks, a paid lobbyist for the California Dental Association, who is trying to make an end-run around local water agencies and citizens by pushing for “regional” fluoridation mandates.

    Many local residents are becoming well informed, and are showing up at all public meetings of agencies discussing fluoridation. We are given almost no time to speak, but we use what little we have to good advantage.

    We were very encouraged by the victory in Portland.

    We are hoping to convince at least 3 of our 5 County Supervisors to vote against fluoridation. The vote is schedules for next March, but some people think Dr. Chalfin will try to get it moved up to thwart our momentum.

    Please post news and comments on our facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CleanWaterSonomaMarin

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.