Link Found Between Fluoridated Water and ADHD

Every day thousands of children are diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) or autism. Could the cause of these mental disorders be the chemicals in the food we eat? Or in the water we drink? Could it be the processed foods we are eating? Several studies done recently at the Harvard School of Public Health as well as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai might hold the answer. These studies, recently published in The Lancet showed that, among several other things, fluoride that is added to most public water systems in America contribute to many of the behavioral and mental disorders we are finding in our children.

Studies show that children who live in areas with high levels of fluoridation in their water supply have significantly lower IQ’s than those who live in low fluoride neighborhoods.  A report from the U.S, National Research Council concluded in 2006 that fluoride can cause neurotoxicity in tests done on animal subjects, this included problems with learning and memory.

Small Girl in the kitchen with her mother drinking water

Photo credit: bigstock

It’s not as if these studies are telling us anything new. There have been more than 27 studies published over the past 22 years that show there is a definite link high fluoride levels and low intelligence scores.  There are numerous scientific studies that show a direct toxic effect of fluoride on the human body as well. It’s surprising that this is not considered a scientific fact by now. Despite all this evidence showing the toxicity of fluoride, more than 70 percent of municipal water supplies have fluoride added to them.

Just a few of the known effect fluoride has on the human body and brain include:

  • Damage to the hippocampus
  • Formation of beta-amyloid plaque ( the kind of plaque that causes Alzheimer’s)
  • Lesions made worse by the lack of iodine
  • Reduced antioxidant defense systems
  • Increase in the absorption of aluminum
  • Accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland
  • Increase in the absorption of lead
  • Lethargy
  • Hyperactivity
  • Problems with the muscles
  • Thyroid disease
  • Arthritis
  • Bone cancer
  • Genetic damage
  • Cell death

One of the main problems with fluoride is that it’s an accumulative toxin. That means your body stores more and more of it as time goes on, it doesn’t simply pass through the body via urine. So, over time, this can lead to serious health problems that aren’t always tied to an over exposure to fluoride. Read 8 ways to detox your body.

According to the two main studies mentioned above, chemical related disorders of the brain more than doubled over the seven years. This is due to the increasing number of chemicals that have yet to be tested being approved for use. The public is never told where or in what quantities these chemicals are being used.

Fluoride must be removed from municipal water supplies, immediately, if for no other reason than our children’s health and safety.

Although pesticides are also extremely pervasive and damaging to the public health, many are at least aware of this danger (Find out dirty produce items you should avoid) . The public at large, generally speaking, is unaware that there is fluoride added to their water supply and the dangers that it poses. For some unknown reason, the problem is largely ignored by public health authorities, even though the scientific evidence is quite clear.

In the same way lead, and other industrial chemicals and solvents, fluoride accumulates in the bloodstream where it eventually deposits itself into various body tissues and the bones. Pregnant women can pass fluoride to their unborn children through the placenta, where it then accumulates in the brains and bones of the developing fetus. These are perpetually damaging effects that everyone, especially those in authority, need to take more seriously. Read more about toxins that are in your home.

As far back as 1943, the Journal of American Medicine stated that fluorides are general poisons that through certain enzymes actually change the permeability of the membrane of the cell. Another study in 1944 by the American Dental Association stated that drinking water with a miniscule amount of 1.2 parts per million will, not perhaps, but will cause developmental disturbances. The potential for bodily harm far outweighs the potential for good.

This is a nationwide problem. We have the ability to test for industrial chemicals and we should have much more strict standards for the use of “common” chemicals.




  1. Steve Slott

    Aug 5, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    Is there any disorder known to man, which antifluoridationists have not attempted to “link” to fluoridation?

    In regard to the studies claimed to show IQ loss….These were all a part of one single review, by a couple of Harvard faculty members, of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, themselves, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

    “–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

    –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

    As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study. These studies were flawed that NOTHING could be “concluded” from them.

    Compare those Chinese studies to:

    Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.

    —–Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence:
    Prospective Study in New Zealand
    Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD,
    Jiaxu Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
    Am J Public Health. Published
    online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)

    In regard to the “Lancet” article, the most recent edition of this publication contains an article which completely rebukes the first one, in regard to fluoride:

    In regad to the 2006 NRC Report……The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride made one final recommendation… lower the US EPA primary MCL for fluoride down from 4.0 ppm. The sole stated reasons for this recommendation were risks of severe dental fluorosis and bone fracture with chronic consumption of water with a fluoride cincentration of 4.0 ppm or greater. No other reasons. Had this Committee any concerns with any other of the endless barrage of disorders which antifluoridationists so desperately seek to attach to fluoridation, it would have stated so and recommended accordingly. It did not. Additionally, this Committee made no recommendation to lower the EPA secondary MCL down from 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the secondary MCL which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride made no recommendation to lower.

    In regard to the unsubstantiated claim in this article that “There are numerous scientific studies that show a direct toxic effect of fluoride on the human body as well”……….Prove it. Properly cite any valid, peer-reviewed scientific studies in regard to fluoride at the optimal level as utilized in fluoridation, which demonstrate any such “direct toxic effect”.

    In regard to the laundry list of the “known effect fluoride has on the human body and brain”…….Prove it. Properly cite any valid, peer-reviewed scientific studies in regard to fluoride at the optimal level as utilized in fluoridation, which demonstrate causation of any of the effects on that list.

    In regard to the unsubstantiated that “Pregnant women can pass fluoride to their unborn children through the placenta, where it then accumulates in the brains and bones of the developing fetus.”………Prove it. Properly cite any valid, peer-reviewed scientific studies in regard to fluoride at the optimal level as utilized in fluoridation, which demonstrate any adverse effect on “developing fetus”.

    In regard to the quotes from three quarters of a century ago……is this that phantom “new, emerging science” to which antifluoridationists constantly refer but can somehow never produce?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  2. Ima Skeptic

    Aug 6, 2014 at 6:20 am

    If anyone feels deprived of fluoride ions, all they have to do is brush their teeth with a fluoridated toothpaste. Or use a fluoridated mouthwash. Fluoride gets absorbed sublingually. It isn’t necessary to drink it in tap water to get the systemic effects of it. Sodium fluoride dissolves easily in both water and saliva. Almost any form of substance may be amenable to sublingual administration if it dissolves easily in saliva. How do they think sublingual vitamin B-12 works? Or nitroglycerin tablets for heart patients?

    Adding it to everyone’s tap water is senseless. Unless you are in the business of peddling it for profit.

  3. Fitness In Post

    Aug 13, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    These Harvard researchers you mention came out and said themselves this doesn’t apply to the U.S. drinking water supply. 25 out of 27 of their studies were done in China.