Keyword search
News 2019


19th October 2019:  "A blast from the past".  Bill Etherington MP (Sunderland) waxing lyrical in 2001 in the House of Commons on his concerns about the safety of adding fluoride to drinking water.  LINK

18th October 2019:  This is a bit of fluff but of interest:  the Fluoride Free Toothpaste Market is set to expand!  LINK  Once you get through the industry-speak, you will discover that there are people out there who are acknowledged as being sensitive to fluoride.  

3rd October 2019:'s article on the Government's Green Paper on Prevention of Ill-Health.

This reasonably well-balanced article discusses the wide range of interventions being planned in the Government's Green Paper (LINK) in order to prevent dental decay.  However, it cites the usual pro-fluoridationists but has failed to contact anyone from the anti-fluoridation camp for a quote.  So, a comment has been placed on the website which spells out the current situation regarding the unlawful act of adding hydrofluoric acid to drinking water.  The LINK takes you to the comment and the full article.

The Green Paper is out for public consultation (as reported below in our 11th August posting) and the closing date is 14th October.  WMAF and UKFFFA have been busy consulting colleagues during the past three months and we are almost ready to send our response to the Department of Health and Social Care.  The rather strange question has been agonised over and we're not quite sure if the DHSC has taken on board the implications of what they're asking:

"What should the role of water companies be in water fluoridation schemes?" 

The word "role" has one of two meanings: "role" as in an actor playing a role, or in legal parlance, a "role" is a "function or position", or "part performed especially in a particular operation or process".

If we are to play along with this consultation question and please the shadowy authors of the Green Paper, we would be forced to say that the role/function of Water Companies is to obey the law when asked to do so by Public Health England acting on behalf of local authorities who have approved WF after a public consultation.  However, by adding hexa(hydro)fluorosilicic acid to drinking water, water companies would not be complying with UK law because of the presence of hydrofluoric acid in the fluoridating acid which is not permitted in law.  So, surely the role/function/position of Water Companies is to protect their shareholders and customers from any accusation of unlawful wrongdoing?  The unwanted outcome could be a drop in share price if fluoridating water companies are acused of poisoning their customers - which, in fact, is what they are doing.

1st October 2019:  Fluoride content of Lidl's bottled water, Simply.

We have received confirmation today from Lidl that their Simply 2L water contains 0.32mg fluoride per litre.   Although this is natural calcium fluoride, we feel that it would be unwise to use it to prepare baby formula.  Also, when living in a fluoridated area, it would be better to avoid all sources of fluoride in order to detox the poison.

30th September 2019:  Tooth Decay in the USA

"Over 34 million school hours are lost each year due to children's dental health problems in the U.S."  This is a snippet from the Mountain Grove News Journal (US).  The USA is the most fluoridated country in the World.  Read into it what you will!

22nd September 2019:  The UK Local Dental Committees' Conference 2019. 

The Conference received two motions regarding WF, both of which were passed unanimously without further discussion

Motion 8: Hull and East Riding LDC, Simon Hearnshaw

This Conference supports the reallocation of the recurrent costs of Water Fluoridation Schemes away from Local Authorities and towards the NHS (the main financial beneficiary) where a Scheme is feasible and the Return on Investment is apparent. 

The Delegates voted to support WF and to actively persuade local authorities to continue their efforts to pursue WF in preference to individualised dental health interventions.  Here is the news article: LINK  

Comment:  Not one dental delegate questioned the motion.  Was this because they did not know enough about the issue to ask questions or were they so brain-washed by years of dental school WF propaganda and lack of well-balanced CPD that they did not have the wherewithal to challenge the motions?  Note that the 1st motion was proposed by Dentist Simon Hearnshaw who runs the Hull pro-fluoridation website One Part Per Million which has been paid for by the British Fluoridation Society. The second motion was proposed by Phillip, a member of the British Fluoridation Society.  Well, that's OK then!

Postscript:   15th December 2019.  Since writing the above short article, we've been able to analyse Public Health England's (PHE's) Return on Investment (RoI) calculation and have discovered that the calculation is profoundly flawed.  Water Fluoridation is not the most economical intervention for preventing dental decay.  For an explanation, please follow the LINK which is an extract of a presentation to Sunderland City Council's Health Scrutiny Committee on 5th November 2019.

21st September 2019:  The Singapore Anti-Fluoridation movement is up and running.
"End Fluoridation Singapore" can be accessed via

19th September 2019:  

We're back from our holidays in the Norfolk Broads.  Just seem unable to get away from water topics!  Here is a heart-warming article about how solar panels can pluck water from the air.  The inventor has won a prize for his innovation and he is busy installing his panels in places around the world which need them.  LINK  Unless he is bought out by vested interests, he is going to bring water security to thousands of communities.

11th August 2019:  Public Consultation on Prevention of Ill-Health (Department of Health and Social Care - DHSC)

A section of this invitation for public responses relates to WF.  However, the question is most oddly phrased: "What should the role of water companies be in water fluoridation schemes?"  We will be responding to this question on behalf of WMAF and UKFFFA.  Visitors to this site are invited to send any suggestions for inclusion in our response.

The LINK takes you to the relevant page of the Public Consultation.

Note how a new word is creeping into the debate: "prevention".  The DHSC would like us to attend for a whole range of tests to see if we can be saved with treatment or medicine.  Although not admitting that fluoriated water is a medicine, DHSC is heavily in favour of giving us our fluoride medicine through our water supply.  That's a contradiction in terms!  A department concerned with our health wants to continue to give us a medicine which is not admitted as being a medicine.  It's supposed to prevent ill-health by preventing tooth decay in children.  But, it is clearly not working because the incidence of dental decay amongst 5-year-olds in Coventry and Wolverhampton was 30.7% and 28.4% respectively in 2017.  LINK 

Extracts from the NDEP for England OH Survey 5 yr 2017 Results

Fluoridated area

Local Authority area

Number of children examined

% of examined children with dental decay








345 *


Non-fluoridated area

Local Authority area

Number of children examined

% of examined children with dental decay





259 *


Samples denoted with * are inadequate samples.

Even though fluoridated, the levels of dental decay are as high as those recorded in non-fluoridated Stoke-on-Trent.  This is not the case, however, throughout the fluoridated West Midlands and in some cases, dental decay experience is as low as 16.3% in affluent fluoridated Solihull.  No such conclusion can be drawn regarding Staffordshire which is 50% fluoridated.

Survey results can be confounded if the examiners choose to sample areas of disadvantage as opposed to areas of affluence.

The statistics really prove nothing either way.  However, when examining very large samples, it can be seen that dental decay incidence has been coming down throughout Europe whether fluoridated or non-fluoridated. Public Health England statisticians are on record as saying that decay would be higher if the children’s water was not fluoridated.  We consider that to be a self-delusional statement and there is no proof that this would be the case.

The next survey results will be published towards the end of 2019.

Getting back to health checks, although it is undoubtedly useful and often reassuring to check for aortic aneurisms and retinal problems, we don't need thorough health checks, especially if we are feeling well.  All this is extra stress in our lives and we can all prevent ill-health by looking after ourselves unless we have a genetic predisposition to contracting a particular disease.  

However, looking after ourselves is not so easy when we are pumped full of toxins via our water supply.  Accessing Severn Trent Water Limited's Water Quality Report for your post-code will show that "pumped full of" is not an exaggeration.  As well as the usual suspects there are trace levels of industrial and agricultural chemicals.  

Last year, STW was worried about illegal levels of metaldehyde (from slug pellets) reaching our kitchen tap.  Now, that line in their report does not appear.  What you see on screen is not the full report but you can ask to see the more comprehensive Excel spreadsheet by emailing the company.  LINK

STW's Fact Sheet on Water Filters

LINK   Some of the advice in the fact sheet can be taken with a pinch of salt.  If you feel or know that you need to filter your drinking water then the answer to the first question in the Fact Sheet is "yes".  Although STW describes its tap water as being "wonderful on tap" that is an exaggeration.  Their tap water is impure because it contains 2 impurities (phosphate pentoxide and hydrofluoric acid) and heavy metals such as antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and nickel.  Their tap water also contains fluoride and silica and lots of industrial and agricultural chemicals (Ref: BSEN 12175:2013.)

There is no mention of Reverse Osmosis in the Fact Sheet and a very short indeterminate explanation of membranes.  Although chlorine is mentioned twice, there is no mention of fluoride.  Nor are we told that jug filters, in the main,* cannot remove very tiny elements, such as fluoride.  In fact, jug filters are not recommended by WMAF because they remove beneficial minerals and do not remove fluoride.  So using jug filters in a fluoridated area is not really doing our health any good at all.

* We've had good reports of the Zero water filter system which is a jug filter.  In order to recommend this filter system we need more water samples to check that it does remove fluoride.  Please contact us on if you would like to send us a sample.

10th August 2019 Fluoride Action Network and Mount Sinai Hospital (USA) Press Release

Is Fluoridation safe?­­            

For those who pay attention to the published scientific studies the answer is “no.” But for public health officials and other diehard promoters of fluoridation, the answer is “yes” – and has been for over 70 years. And it HAS to be “yes” because the moment they entertain any doubts on the matter they know the practice has to end. Even if they call for more studies to resolve any doubts it is tantamount to admitting that this practice has been, and continues to be, a huge experiment with the health of millions of people. Such experiments are not allowed.

With each new study indicating the possibility that fluoride harms tissues other than the teeth, fluoridation promoters attack the study’s methodology, or the relevance to water fluoridation at 0.7 ppm, or the authors, or the journal where it is published. We have seen this dozens of times in recent years with the many studies that indicate that fluoride can damage the brain of both animals and humans.
Continued via the LINK

How many more pieces of research are going to be insisted on by our respective governments before the weight of evidence breaks the "dam of obfuscation"?

4th August 2019: Here's an intriguing piece of news.

TOOTH REGENERATION BREAKTHROUGH: Researchers recently discovered certain drugs, including one developed to treat Alzheimer's, stimulate innate self-repair mechanisms. Paul Sharpe, a bioengineer at King's College London, and his colleagues, discovered a new way to coax teeth to regrow themselves in mice. Like skin, teeth can usually repair minor mishaps themselves. When teeth remain uncleaned for too long, acid can eat through the enamel and begin dissolving underlying layers of dense, bony tissue called dentin. When dentin is seriously injured, stem cells located in the tooth's soft, innermost layer (dental pulp) morph into cells called odontoblasts, which secrete new tissue. Sharpe suspected he could dramatically boost teeth's natural healing ability by mobilizing stem cells in the dental pulp. Earlier research had demonstrated the Wnt signaling pathway, a particular cascade of molecules involved in cell-to-cell communication, is essential for tissue repair and stem cell development in many parts of the body such as the skin, intestines and brain. So, maybe exposing damaged teeth to drugs that stimulate Wnt signaling would similarly encourage the activity of stem cells in the dental pulp, giving teeth a kind of regenerative superpower. If the treatment eventually becomes part of the dentist's standard tool kit, scientists say it would easily be one of the field's most important advances in 50 years. (Source:     

Quoted in LINK 

28th July 2019:  Government announces public consultation on "Advancing our Health: Prevention in the 2020s".   LINK

The consultation closes on 14th October so we have plenty of time to collate all the good sound reasons for considering water fluoridation as being a hopeless way of preventing ill health.  WMAF will be taking part in this consultation and we urge all like-minded organisations and people to do the same.

It's outrageous that in the introduction to the consultation we read that the Department of Health supports WF even before the first response has been received by that Department.  Moreover, Whitehall is ignoring our conclusions that WF, as practised by the fluoridating water companies, is incompatible with UK legislation.  As such, how on earth can it be supported when even a 1st year law student can see that local authorities who uphold WF are failing in their duty of care?

It's worth repeating this information:  The Water Industry Act 1991, s.87 permits only two compounds of fluorine to be added to drinking water: H2SiF6 and Na2SiF6.  However, when using hexafluorosilicic acid as the fluoridating agent, a third compound of fluoride - hydrofluoric acid - is added to drinking water (BSEN 12175:2013, p.7).  This makes the act of fluoridating drinking water with hexafluorosilicic acid legally unsound.  It is therefore legally unsound to invite the public support a practice which is legally unsound.

Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is listed as a reportable poison (Deregulation Act 2015, Schedule 21, Part 4).  In fact, HF is one of the deadliest poisons known to mankind.  No government would have the sheer barefaced cheek to legalise its addition to drinking water.  Yes - it may be added in tiny but bioaccumulative amounts but the law doesn't permit its addition.  However, by including WF for consideration in the Green Paper, perhaps that's exactly what is being attempted ... by the back door.  


27th July 2019:  Why is there a concerted push by Public Health England to fluoridate the entire North East?

It is most odd that the attempt to add fluoride to the entire water supply of the North East of England started in the same year that WMAF informed Severn Trent Water that we were aware that the concentration of fluoride was at an all-time low and asked for an explanation.  The reply was that the company was blending fluoridated treated water containing 1ppm fluoride with non-fluoridated water in order to eke out supplies.  This meant that customers were not getting their full ration of fluoride.  

At the time, we reasoned that Public Health England, which has the remit for policing water companies' fluoridation operations, could do nothing to prevent this blending.  There are no requirements in fluoridation legislation which force water companies to add the blending water at the extraction point prior to treatment and fluoride dosing.  This means that WF cannot be proven as being effective (huh!) at reducing dental decay if there is only a fraction of the 'optimum' concentration of fluoride in water at the kitchen tap.  

So, what to do chaps and chapesses?  Well, why not fluoridate an entire region where it is impossible to bring in water from elsewhere.  So, if all water provided by Northumbrian Water is fluoridated, there would be no chance of there being any non-fluoridated water available for blending and this would mean that the optimum concentration of 1ppm would be maintained.  Clever!

Possibly not!  PHE is forgetting that small children only drink one-third of a litre of water each day and 0.3mg fluoride is nowhere near the optimum concentration of fluoride deemed by fluoridation pushers to be effective at preventing dental decay.

So, what is the next stage to be attempted by PHE?  We doubt that PH Consultants will be permitted to capture small disadvantaged children in order to force-feed them with a litre of water per day even if this was financially and practically possible.  However, stranger things have been known to happen.

21st July 2019:  Why on earth would you want to change over to a water meter?  

Today's discussion piece deals with the various ways in which we all waste water and how it is sometimes impossible to stop wasting water.  The more impossibilities that householders have in their lives in relation to water, the less advisable it is to change to a water meter.  LINK

13th July 2019:  Written Parliamentary Question - Child Dental Health

Yesterday, we learned that a second nationwide service is being offered by the government in addition to the Starting Well programme which is currently in place in 13 locations in England where children's dental health is particularly poor.  The new service is known as "Starting Well Core" and targets children from birth to age 2.  

So, now we have two nationwide programmes which are seeking out and tackling dental decay in disadvantaged areas.  So why is there any need to propose Water Fluoridation if the Government is following NICE guidelines?

Is there a disagreement between the two organisations, one of which is organising targeted dental health programmes and the other (Public Health England) which is desperate to increase the number of WF programmes in England? We've learned that PHE has WF as a commissioned service but does not have the remit to initiate targeted dental health programmes.

It's a bit much when our human rights are sacrificed for the sake of a "job description"!  (See editorial below, 17th April.)


12th July 2019:  Editorial Update
It seems that Hull's "One Part Per Million" administrators have had to adjust their statistics following our comment on their article at .  LINK   As reported below on 20th June, anaesthetics for tooth extraction have decreased in Hull.  However, it was not to Simon Hearnshaw's liking that we had noticed this since it has removed his main reason for promoting water fluoridation (WF).  Below is an adjusted set of statistics from One Part Per Million and they really do not make the situation any clearer.  In fact, this is a case of deliberately "muddying the [fluoridated] waters" and mystifying what was reasonably easy to understand.  An elementary mistake has been made by comparing apples (Hull) with pears (Hull and East Yorkshire). Note that whereas the original table displayed on "One Part Per Million" ran from January to December of each year, the new table runs from April to March of each year and yet the statistic of 499 strangely remains the same.

What could be the reason for moving the goal posts?  Is this statistical shenanigans which is intended to stop us recording a downward trend in dental decay?

Today, we also got wind of another article on the,.uk website LINK which is a real humdinger!  It's well worth reading.  The BFS is celebrating its 50th anniversary of existence.  In our view, that's 50 years too long. 

Alan Johnson (ex Health Secretary, ex Hull MP and ex resident of Hull) gave a speech at the event in which he held out hope that Hull would be going for a WF public consultation even though Hull's Portfolio Holder for Finance called a halt to the proposal last summer.  LINK   We've heard nothing on the grape vine about this so was it all inflated guff and bluster encouraged by a glass or two of chablis?  Mmmm ... we think that a Freedom of Information request is called for.

20th June 2019:  Editorial:  What keeps the dentists pursuing an outdated public health measure?

The following is a table copied from the front page of the One Part Per MillionWebsite administered by a Hull pro-fluoridationist, Simon Hearnshaw, dentist and employee at Health Education England (Leeds).  We are told that the website has been funded by the British Fluoridation Society.

We are meant to be scandalised by the following statistics and it is true that these unfortunate children have been suffering through child neglect.  However, we are not told how many teeth have been removed for orthodontic reasons so the total removed due to dental decay will be smaller. 


An analysis of the figures for the first 5 months of each year reveals that far from being a hopeless situation, dental decay is steadily reducing in Hull.



Analysis for the first 5 months of each year in Hull








Hull’s oral health programme which is being delivered by The Teeth Team is "doing the biz".  This is a sustainable programme which encourages behaviour change in parents and in young children who will, when adults, encourage their own children to clean their teeth.

Perversely, Simon Hearnshaw continues to promote WF and he has successfully had a motion passed at the BDA Conference 2019 where a majority applauded those local authorities taking forward water fluoridationLINK

It’s outrageous that Simon Hearnshaw hasn’t even bothered to analyse his own statistics.  Had he done so, would he have been so enthusiastic at promoting WF when alternative sustainable programmes are doing the job perfectly well without violating several medical ethics?  For example, “do not continue the treatment after there is no further requirement for the medicinal intervention”.  People with no teeth (edentate) have no requirement for the medicine and their human rights are being denied them.   Moreover, it is not the residents of an area who ‘require’ the medicine.  The pseudo ‘requirement’ is foisted on them by dental health and public health professionals who have failed to question the absurdity of adding a poison to drinking water just so that it can appear in saliva in minuscule concentrations in the vain hope that it will protect the teeth day and night.

26th May 2019:  Call to arms from Dr Mercola (USA).

Joseph Mercola is a staunch friend of those of us who want to rid the World of artificially fluoridated water.  Here is his recent article giving an update on the intended court action in the USA.  LINK

29th April 2019:  Article in Irish Examiner by Declan Waugh:

Fluoride reduces the following:  Vitamins A, E, C and D, immuno efficiency, antioxidants and iodine uptake.  LINK


17th April 2019:  Editorial:  Leaked PEW (USA) document which admits to fluoride harms

We wonder if Public Health England and Dr Sandra White in particular, have seen this graphic.  If they have, then what are we to make of PHE's silence on the issue.  It is becoming more apparent that water fluoridation is a sacred cow which must be preserved at all costs.

For example, we have recently discovered a list of services provided by PHE consultants who work for local authorities:


Note, that PHE only provides water fluoridation expertise and has nothing to do with individualised oral health programmes which are described in the NICE oral health guidance for Local Authorities and Partners.  

Since PHE is not employed to arrange for individualised programmes, is it any wonder that PHE in the North East is now hoping to fluoridate the entire region by persuading Local Authorities to 'explore' water fluoridation in preference to starting sustainable programmes in homes, nurseries and schools?

Thus the health of an entire region is to be sacrificed because PHE cannot be asked to read up-to-date research and cannot give impartial advice to local authority committees who are charged with improving the health of their electors.  Local Authorities are being led by the nose and are not aware of it.


12th April 2019:  Welcome confirmation that we are on the right track.  

A newspaper report from the Town of Kilmarnock, Virginia (USA) deals with two WF issues:  the percentage of water drunk in households and the existence of dentine bombs.  The town receives water containing 2.76mg fluoride/litre (2.76ppm).

'Due to the expense involved in removing fluoride from water, Kilmarnock town manager Tom Saunders says the town does not have plans to enhance the town’s water supply system in order to lower fluoride levels. “From a practical standpoint it makes no sense to remove these minerals when they have absolutely no negative effects on 99% of the water that is used: washing clothes, showers and baths, flushing toilets, and car washes. The only water for which treatment might be desirable is the water that we drink or ingest: coffee, tea, baby formula, soup, and that amounts to just a couple gallons per day per connection. Removing minerals from 100% of the water pumped from the ground makes little sense when only 1% benefits,” Saunders said.'   

We have calculated that 1.3% of the total water produced by a WTW in the UK is drunk by households so this confirmation is very welcome.

Next, the issue of dental fluorosis and dentine bombs.  Here is what a Kilmarnock dentist has to say on the topic: 

"Adult teeth are not typically affected by the levels of fluoride observed in the Northern Neck, but younger children are at an increased risk of developing fluorosis. Fluorosis usually presents itself as white chalky spots on the teeth but can turn into brown spots and even create a pitting, or series of holes, in the teeth in severe cases. “It can be problematic in the fact that the enamel’s very hard, but if there’s any penetration through a little pit or a fissure, the dentin, which is the softer, sensitive part of the tooth underneath the enamel, will get decayed very quickly,” said Dr. David Newsome, a Kilmarnock dentist. “We see what we would call Northern Neck cavities, where it’s just a little pin hole through the enamel, but when you get down through, it just blows out and creates a lot of decay.”  

Fluorosis is a life-long condition once it’s contracted and, according to Dr. Newsome, treating it can present an expensive challenge.  “The teeth aren’t attractive and they’re not receptive to bonding because they’re very hard and malformed and all of our bonding systems, tooth color restorations or veniers that are bonded to the teeth all depend on a good enamel surface and sometimes that will make the restorations not work very well because of the fluoride,” said Dr. Newsome.   Affected teeth can be bleached or topped with crowns, but these are both costly options for fixing a largely cosmetic condition."   LINK to the newspaper article.

"... it just blows out and creates a lot of decay".  This is the same problem which has been described by dentists in New Zealand who have discovered "mysterious" internal cavities where no decay appears on the surface of the teeth.  The theory is that fluoride alters and weakens the structure of enamel in back teeth which are subject to pressure when chewing.  The chewing motion causes microcracks to appear through which bacteria travel inwards, where they take up residence in the underlying dentine and slowly cause decay.  Some time later the patient complains of toothache but no decay can visibly be seen.  However, a dentist's probe will break through into the hidden cavity.  This effect is discussed on pp. 14-16 of LINK .  However, the Kilmarnock (USA) dentist is now saying that dentine bombs occur in teeth where the enamel is pitted. 

The conclusion has to be that fluoride is an indirect cause of dental decay in all fluorosed pitted teeth and in teeth which have developed microfissures due to the mechanical properties of the enamel being altered by fluoride.

Will this cause UK dentists to re-examine WF?  Don't hold your breath.


9th April 2019:  The Contribution of Fluoride to the Pathogenesis of Eye Diseases: Molecular Mechanisms and Implications for Public Health by Declan Waugh (2019).  

This is yet another piece of research which has not been noticed by the Water Fluoridation Division of Public Health England.   Are staff in that Division really earning their fat cat salaries?  We'll have to remind them in 2022 when they're due to review the science on WF for a third time that this review exists so that they can once again avoid examining any topic where fluoride is seen to be damaging our health.

This is an important piece of research.  Even the slightest hint that fluoride leads to cataracts and macular degeneration ought to ring alarm bells at the highest levels of government.  That is probably never going to happen because to acknowledge the correlation between fluoride and damage to eyesight would be a huge scandal and would bring down the government of the day.  Or rather, would damage the reputation of the two main parties who both seem to be in favour of water fluoridation for spurious reasons of their own.  The Labour Party favours WF because it erroneously believes that WF reduces dental health inequalities across social groups and the Conservative Party is still clinging (precariously) to the "special relationship" with the US which dates back to the early 1950's when the US Government granted £millions to English-speaking developed countries to initiate their own WF programmes as a solution to cheaply processing the hazardous waste arising from phosphate, aluminium and nuclear bomb manufacture.

29th March 2019:  We're breathing down the necks of fluoridation proponants ... 

It's quite simple really:

1.  Only 1.3% of the total water provided by each Water Treatment Works is swallowed by householders.
2.  Of that 1.3%, a very tiny percantage is swallowed by the target group - small disadvantaged children.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that's 0.1% of the total amount of treated water if each child drinks 1 litre a day
3.  But we're told that small children only drink one-third litre/day making the total volume of treated water consumed by the target group as being 0.033%.

4.  However water companies are practising blending of treated water in order to even out distribution and to dilute concentrations of nitrate.  So if the water is fluoridated prior to blending with non-fluoridated water, the target group will drink varying minuscule amounts of fluoride depending on the degree to which the water is blended.
5. It is now believed that it is fluoride in saliva which prevents dental decay but because most retained fluoride deposits in bones, the concentration of fluoride in saliva is "diddly squat".  
6.  Eighty percent of dental decay occurs in teeth which have fissures - i.e. molars.  Fluoride is not capable of preventing decay in these teeth.  Nor can fluoride ever prevent baby bottle caries.  So, not many teeth are helped by systemic fluoride in saliva.  This partially explains why the largest US survey ever done which involved 39,000 children found only a dental decay reduction of 0.6 of a tooth surface where the children were fluoridated.  With 100 tooth surfaces in the human mouth, that's statistically insignificant. When blending takes place, we expect the reduction in dental decay to be even less than 0.6 of a tooth surface.

Conclusion: the purported benefit of WF is vanishingly small.  A storm in a tea-cup, really. 

LINK to nitrate dilution practice.   When you get there, put "nitrate" into your seach engine.  This is an interesting document and well worth the read.

LINK to A Complete Waste of Money:  Water Fluoridation Costs for England 2013-2021.  This report has been read 1137 times ... and rising.  Since publication, the supplier of the fluoridating acid has changed to Israel Chemicals Limited.  Costs for 2017-2018 are not listed in the report because it was published in 2017.  

Updated Water Fluoridation costs can be seen at LINK and LINK.  These two lists tell you how much your local authority is spending each year on this foolish programme.


28th March 2019:  Nestlé faces lawsuit regarding making a false claim regarding the origin of its Poland Spring Natural Mineral Water.  LINK

17th March 2019:  Gosh!  A newspaper article which talks about dental decay in the West Midlands without Sandra White (PHE Dental Health lead) mentioning water fluoridation (WF)!  However, old habits die hard and she is still urging the use of fluoride toothpaste.  I suppose it would be difficult to urge water fluoridation in the West Midlands because there is almost a 100% blanket coverage in the Region.  

We knew that dental decay in the West Midlands was bad but not this bad.  

I wonder what would happen if WF ceased in the Region? Would decay increase, reduce or remain the same?  Well, dental decay rates have been dropping throughout Europe whether or not a country practises WF so why bother with WF?


Go to LINK for the full newspaper article.  


17th March 2019: There is a new innovative toothpaste from Japan and not a mention of 'fluoride' anywhere.  A must read!  LINK


16th March 2019:  The LINK will take you to an excellent website - - where the American Dental Association (ADA) is put under the spotlight. 


15th March 2019:  Joy Warren of UKFFFA gave a talk in Darlington on 14th March. The talk was entitled "The Fallacies of Fluoridation".  We have uploaded the handout listing the Fallacies together with references to research etc. which backs up our claim that WF is a fallacious policy.

LINK  to Fallacies References.

There is a Powerpoint Presentation - The Fallacies of Fluoridation. Please be patient while we prepare the ppp for uploading.

12th March 2019: Fluoridation does NOT reduce dental health inequalities across social groups. The evidence is being placed here for the benefit of people who wish to cite evidence against WF in respect of Dental Health Inequalities. LINK

19th February 2019:  Will they never give up?

The LINK takes you to Hansard where Sir Paul Beresford MP, the ex-New Zealand pro-fluoridation zealot and part-time dentist (and ex-vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society) asks the Minister of State to "persuade" local authorities to fluoridate their drinking water.  

In the first instance, Public Health England is not doing such a bad job at persuading North-East councils to "explore" water fluoridation so Sir Paul does not need to worry that the forces of coercion are slumbering.

In the second instance, surely it's for the local authorities to persuade their constituents that WF is necessary?  Nowhere in the Health and Social Care Act 2013 does it state that HM Government has the responsibility of persuading local authorities to fluoridate.  The issue has been devolved to local authorities which may or may not choose to take note of PHE advice.

Turning now to PHE, it is apparently their policy to favour WF.  We are told that they look at a whole raft of interventions including WF.  However, in the NICE Oral Health Strategy Guidance for Local Authorities and Partners, we do NOT see WF being recommended.  Since NICE is the champion of clinical excellence, it is to their Guidance that Local Authorities should refer in preference to listening to pro-fluoridaton PHE dental health consultants who have inherited the policy from the defunct Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs).  Note that PHE is peppered with the same staff who used to work for the SHAs.  We would like to know if the policy has been inherited as opposed to being deliberately reinforced on hand-over of responsibility.

We're really pleased to see that the Minister refused to be drawn on the issue but concerned that this means that Sir Paul will now be able to give him the low-down without there being any counteracting evidence.  Hopefully UKFFFA's letter to Stephen Hammond will be read by him without being diverted by his gate-keepers.  If it's diverted, we will see once again that our democratic rights are being squashed.

UP-DATE:  9th April 2019 - as predicted the letter was diverted by the gate-keepers who are refusing to divuge whether or not Stehpen Hammond read the letter and the attachments.  Not only that but the DHSC practises the art of one-way emails, i.e. "do not reply to this email" so one can never hope to strike up a meaningful conversation with anyone in the DHSC ever again - unless one complains and even then, we're not holding our breath.  Some democracy!   

12th February 2019:   Here's an intriguing article by the sponsors of the Fluorosilicic Acid Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast, 2013 - 2019 yearbook.  It contains some interesting claims! LINK  

6th February 2019:  
The Alzheimer's Association (USA) withdraws its endorsement of water fluoridation.   LINK  
Comment:  there is a long list of organisations in the USA which have traditionally endorsed water fluoridation.  Most of the endorsement have been "on the nod" and members of the organisations have not been knowledgeable on the topic.   The AA is following closely in the footsteps of the Children's Health Defense which is fronted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.


17th January 2019: Sodium and Sulphate contents of bottled water in the UK.

Natural Mineral Water and Spring Water should contain unvarying concentrations of sodium and sulphate.  On the other hand, tap water varies due to the practice of blending water from different sources at different times of the year. NHS Choices warns against using bottled water when making up baby formula but is this warning justified?   The LINK takes you to a table in which we have endeavoured to classify bottled water according to its sodium and sulphate contents.  

The conclusion is that even though bottled water needs to be boiled, tap water is no exception to this rule.  In most cases the concentration of sodium and sulphate is lower in bottled water than in tap water.

Please read the label before purchasing if you are intending to use the bottled water to make up baby formula.


LINK  I'll bet you never thought that you had blue, green and red munchies in your cells.  Well, you do!.  This is a perfectly wonderful animation of the processes which go on inside your cells.  It's not off-topic because it is relatively easy to envisage how pollutants could prevent certain processes in our cells.  

January 2019:  EDITORIAL  Water Fluoridation is Illegal. No "ifs" no "buts".

The pharmaceutical companies and the authors of the British National Formulary are far more cautious than English local authorities when it comes to prescribing fluoride.


Each pill contains 0.5ppm fluoride.
Do not use in areas with more than 0.3 ppm fluoride in drinking water.
Do not give to children under 3 years of age.
Do not use if you are pregnant.

If you're a pregnant woman living in a fluoridated area, you're advised to drink lots of water.  That's a minimum of 2ppm fluoride each day for 9 months where the water is dosed with 1ppm fluoride. The background level of 0.3ppm is thought by the pharmaceutical company as being acceptable so a pregnant fluoridated woman would be overdosing by 1.4ppm fluoride where the woman drinks 2 litres of fluoridated tap water and lives in an area where the water is dosed with 1ppm fluoride.   (2 x 1ppm = 2ppm less 2 x 0.3ppm = 1.4ppm)

Why would a pharmaceutical company advise that pregnant women do not take these tablets?  What do they know that Public Health England (PHE) does not know or does not want to know?

If you're an infant living in a fluoridated area, NHS Choices recommends that your powder baby formula is made up with boiled tap water because bottled water is not sterile (!) and because it contains too much sodium (!!).  The fluoride tablets are not to be given to children under 3 years of age and this implies that their exposure should be no more than 0.3ppm background fluoride/day.  Yet, a fluoridated infant drinking ½ litre baby formula will drink 0.5ppm fluoride/day and this increases as its consumption of fluoridated baby formula increases.  Where the water is dosed with 1ppm fluoride, infants and babies are overdosing on fluoride  in baby formula by 0.2ppm - 0.7ppm fluoride per litre.  The NHS is really keen on prevention but has forgotten to factor in the negative influence that fluoride has on every cell in our bodies.  "We use fluoride to poison enzymes.  That's why things die." (James D Sumner, Nobel Prize Winner, mid-20th Century.)

The dosage for children between 3 and 5 years is ½ a tablet = 0.25ppm fluoride.  If the background level of fluoride is 0.3ppm, they could receive a total of 0.55ppm fluoride/litre.  Yet if they are fluoridated, they will be drinking 1ppm fluoride/litre.  Since Public Health England is reluctant to accept that small children only drink one-third of a litre of tap water a day (since to admit that they don't drink one litre a day would weaken their case for fluoridating our drinking water), we have to accept that these young children are overdosing by 0.45ppm fluoride/litre.

Finally, let's not forget the unborn child which receives fluoride via the placenta, which quickly finds its way into the fetal brain which does not have a blood-brain-barrier to protect it.  It is during gestation that the intelligence of the child becomes reduced as shown by almost 60 research reports published in the past 3 decades culminating in the work of Bashash et al.

Public Health England is careless of our health because that organisation is tied into a policy which is based on old manipulated science from the 1940s by several USA 'agents', initially in order to help ALCOA, the national aluminium smelting company to cheaply dispose of its hazardous waste.  This is not a conspiracy 'theory' and a read of Christopher Bryson's carefully researched book "The Fluoride Deception" ought to convince the most determined pro-fluoridationist that fluoride added to drinking water has never been anything other than an excuse to cheaply dispose of waste.

PHE has a department specifically devoted to water fluoridation.  Should fluoridation cease, its staff would have to be redeployed meaning that PHE (an over-fat cat*) would shrink.  It is the aim of organisations everywhere to maintain their size and power and PHE is no different.

There is no elegant answer to this problem for PHE.  That organisation cannot issue a press release warning pregnant women, infants and young children to avoid fluoride since it is the infants and young children who are in the target group for fluoride prophylaxis.  Nor, while fluoridation policy remains encapsulated in glass, can PHE decide to stop promoting fluoridation.  The organisation's only way out is to work to reverse the policy (thus eventually losing a part of its empire) or accept that fluoridation is illegal.  

WMAF has spent the past 3 months trying to persuade the CEO of PHE, Duncan Selbie, to recognise the illegality of fluoridation.  However, it would appear that he is not listening and has now decided to stop communicating by telling us that the conversation is closed.  

The contents of the letters from WMAF clearly spell out why fluoridation is illegal: only two compounds of fluorine are legally permitted when local authorities wish to increase fluoride levels in drinking water - hexafluorosilicic acid and disodium fluorosilicate (sodium fluoride with silica).  This is stipulated in the Water Industries Act 1991 s. 87.  Duncan Selbie has agreed that our interpretation of the law is correct.  However in the letter in which he agreed that this was the case, he uncharacteristically used a facsimile signature which we believe is not admissible in a court of law.  Our second letter in December told him that there is a third compound of fluorine present in hexafluorosilicic acid - viz. hydrofluoric acid (HF).  The concentration of HF in the 20% fluoridating acid is of less importance than the fact that HF, as a compound of fluorine, is illegal since it is not listed in The Act.  

Moreover, HF is a reportable poison (Deregulation Act 2015, Schedule 21, Part 4).  We are searching the worldwide literature for a maximum allowable standard for HF in food and water but have so far drawn a blank.  It may be that because no-one has ever contemplated adding HF to food and water in the past (well, why would they when it's a reportable poison? and extremely difficult to handle), no-one has ever thought to stipulate a maximum allowable.  (Perversely, sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride are legal additions to food - EU Reg. 1170/2009, Annex III refers - with both being added to milk and salt respectively.)

The WIA 1991 states "added to" as opposed to "appearing at the kitchen tap".  According to our calculations, there is up to 0.0945 mg HF added to each litre of water when 6.3mg H2SiF6 per litre of water is added.  These calculations are derived from British Standard BSEN 12175:2013.   Although HF is a deadly poison, at these levels its effects on our health are accumulative rather than fatal and no-one drops down dead after drinking a glass of fluoridated water.  However, many people are sensitive to fluoride and report several 'minor' ailments plus problems with stomach pains upon drinking the stuff.  Similarly, no-one dies after ingesting 0.01mg/litre arsenic or lead and yet 0.01 mg/litre As and Pb is the maximum allowable in food and water.  The Drinking Water Inspectorate has to regulate the levels of As and Pb in drinking water and water companies are very careful to keep within the guidelines.  

But with 9 times more HF at up to 0.0945 mg/litre being added to drinking water, how on earth can water companies and PHE turn a blind eye to the presence of this reportable poison?  Drinking water is rendered impure by HF. The British Standard describes HF as an impurity.  The dictionary definition of an impurity is a substance "that is present in small quantities in another substance and makes it dirty or of unacceptable quality". (Collins online dictionary.)

In summary, fluoridation in the UK is illegal due to the presence of HF, a third illegal compound of fluorine and which is an impurity and a reportable poison. It renders drinking water as being of unacceptable quality.

Comments to

Mail OnLine 9th January 2019: Hundreds of nanny state staff earn more than £100,000: Surge in workers in quangos pushing public health messages getting fat-cat salaries.

13th January 2019:  Chronology of Water Fluoridation
This is a long document but well worth reading if you don't have the time to read Chris Bryson's excellect exposé "The Fluoride Deception".  LINK

7th January 2019: So here we are the other side of 2018 and raring to go!

In the autumn, WMAF had a meeting with staff at Severn Trent Water's HQ in Coventry.  This is a repeat of our annual meeting with the company at which we ask questions and invariably get no answers.  We are 'granted' this meeting as a thank you for not asking embarrassing fluoridation questions at the AGM.  Over the next few months we hope to explore the asked but unanswered questions.  Let's kick off with "why do some Water Treatment Works (WTWs) use disodium fluorosilicate instead of hexafluorosilicic acid when increasing the concentration of fluoride to 1mg fluoride/litre water? What are the names of these WTWs?

This was the second time that we had asked this question and the second time that we were denied an answer.  The company decided to shelter behind the "commercial confidentiality" excuse.

So, we have turned to acquiring part of the answer from an outside source.  The reasons for using disodium fluorosilicate are:

Small amount required so a tanker full would be too much;
Dangerous narrow road leading to the WTW;
No holding tank for liquid hexafluorosilicic acid and no bunds for liquid overspill;
No personnel trained for emergency response and evacuation if using hexafluorosilicic acid;
Cheaper to buy and transport the concrete hardener.

People whose water is fluoridated using disodium fluorosilicate will be pleased to learn that they are, in essence, getting rat poison in their drinking water since the fluoridating agent is sodium fluoride with the added goodness of silica.  Moreover, someone in Whitehall has realised this and has listed disodium fluorosilicate as a 'reportable poison' in the current law - Deregulation Act 2015, Schedule 21, Part 4.  

Don't worry if you are drinking this muck: its use is permitted in the Water Industries Act 1991 as amended.  See how they care for us!

The hunt is on for the WTWs which use sodium fluoride........


We're taking the opportunity to display a poster which highlights this scandalous state of affairs. (NB.  To improve readability, press CTRL and the + sign a few times.)


This website is all about a precious resource: water.   We'll be featuring the photography of Heidi Westum over the next few months by uploading her series of water droplets' photographs.

Credits: Heidi Westum (

                  Fluoride Analysis Database Service for Tap Water.

Results 2010 - 2017.  This includes analyses of Lincolnshire and Central Bedfordshire fluoridated water.  To view, click on Fluoride Analysis Database Service in the menu on the left-hand-side of this screen. 


Why is it alright to give a 3-year-old 0.25 mg fluoride in a tablet while a pregnant woman should not take these tablets but is urged to drink lots of water containing 1 mg fluoride/litre?  

Why are these 0.5mg fluoride tablets not to be used if the drinking water contains more than 0.3 mg fluoride/litre?  0.3 + 0.5 = 0.8 mg which is still less than the fluoride added to our drinking water.  

Why do the instructions urge us not exceed stated dose when every day of our lives we have to drink twice the amount of fluoride/litre than is found in each tablet?

If we drink 2 litres of fluoridated water a day, we ingest 4 times the dose of a tablet.

WHY?     WHY?      WHY?

It's alright to 'cause a stink'.


Contact if you want to do something about stopping water fluoridation.

                                   No research = no proof of safety


If you suffer from migraine, have you tried avoiding fluoridated water and ordinary every-day tea processed from Camellia sinensis leaves which contain quite a lot of natural fluoride?

The above PowerPoint slide appears in a longer Australian presentation which can be sourced at LINK   Most of Australia is fluoridated.

Dental fluorosis is damage to the  enamel of permanent teeth which have to last a lifetime.  The York Review (2000) found a prevalence in the UK of 48% when the water is dosed with 1mg fluoride/litre water.


Video on Dental Fluorosis in the USA: LINK


This child is collateral damage. We are all collateral damage because we are being used to get rid of a hazardous waste in the cheapest way possible through our bodies and via our English rivers.  Are you angry about this?

If so, contact and CAUSE A STINK!  


Green Tea
Researchgate has published a short report on the dangers of drinking green tea.  Despite the much touted benefits of green tea drinking in the media in the past few years, the leaves also contain non-health-giving chemicals, including fluoride.  The report can be accessed via Researchgate.  
Green Tea and its Fluoride Content, a Major Health Hazard.