January 3, 2011

Fluoride in Water – Final in a Series of Five

Legality of Fluoridation

Fluoridation of municipal drinking water has aroused some controversy from its beginnings in 1945. Determined people have questioned its effectiveness, safety, and legality. Most scientists, dentists, and physicians are satisfied that the effectiveness and safety questions have been resolved. Some people, however, still object to fluoridation from the perspective that it denies them a legally protected choice.

There is a Constitutional basis for fluoridation. The preamble states the purpose of government is “to promote the general welfare.” The 10th Amendment gives to the states all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government, and this includes control of public health legislation. The development of public health law illustrates the conflict between individual rights and the greater good. Historically, the courts have sided with the greater good on issues of public health, two examples being vaccinations and quarantines. The same legal basis supports our regulations on toxic air emissions, timber harvesting, and wastewater discharges.

The courts have rejected opposition arguments based on the pursuit of happiness and personal liberty, the right to privacy, and forced medication (violation of the principle of informed consent). In Rogowski v. City of Detroit, the court held that it was “common knowledge” that fluoridation is beneficial, and “the fact that a belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone.”  An Oklahoma court found that fluoridation is “no more practicing medicine or dentistry than a mother would be who furnishes her children a well-balanced diet.” The courts have recognized the similarity of water fluoridation and disinfection with chlorine, a practice which has been upheld in the courts many times. The U.S. Supreme Court has never chosen to hear an appeal regarding the legality of fluoridation, with six cases dismissed because they did not warrant the court’s attention, and seven cases dismissed for lack of a substantial “federal question.”

Science works best within its structure of hypothesis, experiment, theory, interpretation and publication. Its likely fluoridation has been more rigorously evaluated by this process than any other public health measure, and this has been recognized by our courts and elected bodies.

DMWW continues to stay current with all the latest research and regulations regarding fluoride. This is the final article in a series of five. Links to previous articles are below. Thanks for reading!

Fluoride in Water – Part 1

Fluoride in Water – Part 2

Fluoride in Water – Part 3

Fluoride in Water – Part 4

Posted by: Chris Jones 3 Comments
Labels: , , , , , Posted in Fluoride, Water Quality, Water Treatment

3 Responses to “Fluoride in Water – Final in a Series of Five”

  1. April 06, 2012 at 9:57 am, Fluoride in Water | Des Moines Water Works said:

    […] Want more info on Fluoride, check out our blog series. […]


  2. December 02, 2013 at 12:51 pm, Mark Austin said:

    This may be too late or posted to the wrong place, but having read that there’s a possibility of your ending flouridation, I want to urge that you continue it. I thought this question was settled back in the late 50’s-early 60’s and the John Birch Society lost. To the extent that flouridation is a preventative and is safe, it should be continued.


  3. December 05, 2013 at 11:54 am, Aaron said:

    All of the experts who claim ingesting fluoride is safe are dentists. Dentists are not schooled on any of the human body outside the chin-to-nose region. Dentists are NOT QUALIFIED to comment on the effects on the brain (namely the thyroid and pineal glands) of ingesting this drug that the EPA classifies as a “Chemical With Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity”- http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcas
    How about we get some research from neurologists? Fluoride slows the thyroid, which regulates metabolism. More people drink fluoridated water in the USA than the rest of the world combined, and we are facing an obesity epidemic. There is NO COINCIDENCE THERE! The pineal gland allows for free thought, fluoride calcifies it, rendering it useless. These are the big concerns, and dentists are patently not qualified to comment on this. And corporate board members with degrees ranging from archetecture to comparitive literature are FOR SURE not qualified to comment on this, let alone to prescribe and force this drug on half a million people. These 6 people need to be brought up on civil and criminal charges, in accordance with Iowa Law:
    Iowa Code Section 148.1 (2007) provides that the following persons are deemed to be engaged in the practice of medicine:
    “Persons who perscribe, or prescribe and furnish medicine (ie. Fluoride)for human ailments (ie. Tooth Decay) or treat the same by surgery.”
    A person who is engaged in the practice of medicine in Iowa is REQUIRED to obtain a license for that purpose. See Iowa Code Section 147.2. In the event a person engages in the practice of medicine without a license issued by the Iowa Board of Medicine, the office of the Attorney General is authorized to file a civil action against that person in a State court to obtain a permanent injunction prohibiting that person from engaging in the unauthorized practice of medicine. See Iowa Code sections 147.83 and 147.92. Furthermore, such unlicensed practice could subject an individual to criminal charges, as section 147.103A(1) provides that a violation of Section 147.2 IS A CLASS “D” FELONY.
    This battle is far from over- just now it moves from the board room to civil and criminal courts, where lawsuits and jail time await these criminals. Much of the population is now awake to this issue, and we will not again turn a blind eye to this. I have already filed charges with both the Iowa Attorney General as well as the Iowa Board of Health, and fully intend to keep pushing this issue until these agencies put a stop to this felonious activity.


Leave a Reply