Chemical used for water fluoridation deemed potentially harmful to health by federal court ruling

Chemical used for water fluoridation deemed potentially harmful to health by federal court ruling

=====================================================================================================

In a groundbreaking decision, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that water fluoridation at the current level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) poses an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children [1][2]. The court's ruling, published on the website prepareforchange.net and available in full at fluoridealert.org, has significant implications for public health in the United States.

The court's decision is based on a comprehensive evaluation of scientific evidence, which identified various health risks associated with fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L. These risks include neurotoxicity and cognitive effects, with links found between fluoride exposure at these levels and lower IQ in children as well as neurobehavioral problems in children exposed in utero and early infancy [1][2].

The ruling also highlights the risk to vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and formula-fed infants, who are particularly susceptible to fluoride’s toxic effects. Approximately 200 million Americans consume fluoridated water at this concentration, including about two million pregnant women and 300,000 exclusively formula-fed infants [2].

Furthermore, the court and Fluoride Action Network (FAN) cited scientific data showing adverse effects of fluoride on the liver, kidneys, thyroid gland, and bones, indicating fluoride toxicity beyond neurological harm [1][2].

The court's ruling emphasizes the severity and breadth of health risks from lifelong exposure to fluoridated water at this concentration, particularly highlighting irreversible or life-altering neurodevelopmental impacts on children. The court ordered the EPA to regulate fluoride as a hazardous substance under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), reflecting a demand for urgent regulatory action to protect public health [1][2][4].

Everyone involved in the case, including those who spread the word about it, is encouraged to celebrate this momentous occasion. The court's ruling states that comments on the article are welcome to provide additional information, clarification, validation, or worthy rebuttal.

The case was led by Michael Connett, an attorney, and involved the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and co-plaintiffs, as well as numerous donors. However, this article does not provide any new information about the attorneys, co-plaintiffs, or donors involved in the case.

It is important to note that the EPA cannot ignore the risk posed by fluoridation, and will be forced to regulate fluoridation as such due to the court's ruling. The goal of comments on the article is to gain additional truth and deepen our understanding of this important issue.

References:

[1] Prepareforchange.net. (2024). We Won: Federal Court Rules That Fluoridation Chemicals Pose an Unreasonable Risk to Health. [online] Available at: prepareforchange.net/2024/09/29/we-won-federal-court-rules-that-fluoridation-chemicals-pose-an-unreasonable-risk-to-health/

[2] Fluoridealert.org. (2024). Court Ruling. [online] Available at: fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf

[3] The Lancet. (2020). The Lancet Neurology Commission on Neurodevelopmental Risks from Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity. [online] Available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(20)30264-X/fulltext

[4] National Toxicology Program. (2020). Fluoride in Drinking Water and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Effects in the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. [online] Available at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/88656

1. This ruling marks a significant shift in the approach towards health and wellness, particularly concerning water fluoridation.
2. The court's decision underlines the importance of truth in science, emphasizing the need for thorough evaluation of potential health risks.
3. The implications of this ruling extend beyond just medical-conditions, reaching into the broader realm of fitness and exercise, mental health, and even climate change.
4. Renewable energy and environmental science are also relevant, as we grapple with the impact of toxic substances on our environment.
5. The financial industry, energy sector, and real-estate market may also be affected as public perceptions on safely regulated water sources evolve.
6. The court's ruling could influence the investment landscape, with potential changes in personal finance and home-and-garden choices.
7. Cooking and food-and-drink industries might need to reevaluate their practices to accommodate increased consumer awareness.
8. This event could impact family dynamics, with parents becoming more vigilant about their children's health and nutrition.
9. Therapies and treatments for chronic diseases like chronic kidney disease, neurological disorders, and migraines could benefit from increased research funding.
10. CBD and other supplements might gain attention as potential alternatives to harmful substances.
11. In the realm of education and self-development, there is a growing need for books and online courses on environmental science, policy and legislation.
12. Personal growth and goal-setting can benefit from increased awareness of the risks associated with common practices.
13. Social media platforms are increasingly crucial for spreading important news and fostering discussions on these topics.
14. Even the housing market and personal finance might be affected by the ripples of this groundbreaking decision.
15. The rise of electric vehicles and a focus on sustainable living become more necessary in light of these concerns.
16. The court's ruling could trigger changes in the casino and gambling industry, as consumer preferences shape the landscape.
17. The entertainment industry may also respond to these shifts in public sentiment and perceptions of risk.
18. Policy and legislation will play a critical role in ensuring the safety of our water and protecting public health.
19. Online education and remote learning can be valuable resources for continued learning and goal-setting.
20. Poker and other casino games might witness changes in player behavior due to increasing concerns about health and wellness.
21. Budget-travel options could become popular as people prioritize savings and make lifestyle adjustments.
22. Pop-culture conversations will likely reflect this shifting focus on health, the environment, and personal growth.
23. General news outlets will continue to cover this story, providing updates on the EPA's response and ongoing debates.
24. Crime and justice reports may also touch upon related topics, such as the role of big business in serving public health.
25. Learning resources for a variety of topics, from data and cloud computing to relationships and travel, will be essential tools for staying informed.
26. The impact of this ruling could extend to diverse industries, from cars and beverages to education and technology.
27. The interconnectedness of our world means that this decision reaches far beyond one country, affecting people, businesses, and policies worldwide.
28. In the midst of all this change, it is crucial to maintain a sense of perspective, recognizing that progress often requires discomfort and adaptation.
29. Ultimately, the aim should be to foster a healthier, more informed, and more sustainable lifestyle for everyone, leveraging technology and data to drive positive change.

Read also: