NOTABLE QUOTES FROM EPA COURT RULING. AGAINST EPA: COURT FINDS THAT FLOURIDE IMPOSES RISK OF REDUCED IQ, CITING 72 STUDIES. EVIDENCE THAT EPA KNEW.

SAFETY CONCLUSIONS BY EPA RULED FLAWED

After decades of disinformation from the US Government on the “safety” of fluoride in drinking water, here are some remarkable quotes from the court ruling that stand out, especially in the context of the longstanding disinformation about fluoride toxicity:

1. "The Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter ('mg/L') – the level presently considered 'optimal' in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children."

   • This finding challenges the narrative that water fluoridation is entirely safe, highlighting the court's decision to prioritize evidence of harm over traditional policy.

2. "There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure."

   • Even the EPA, which has been responsible for regulating fluoride, acknowledges that fluoride can be hazardous, contradicting public assurances of safety.

3. "Ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring."

   • This clear link between fluoride exposure and developmental harm directly contradicts claims that fluoride has no adverse health effects.

4. "The NTP concluded that fluoride is indeed associated with reduced IQ in children, at least at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg/L (i.e., “higher” exposure levels). And notwithstanding inherent difficulties in observing effects at lower exposure levels, explained in further detail below, scientists have observed a statistically significant association between fluoride and adverse effects in children even at such “lower” exposure levels (less than 1.5 mg/L)."

   • This admission from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is significant, given the widespread belief that only very high levels of fluoride could be harmful.

5. "The trial evidence in this case establishes that even if there is some uncertainty as to the precise level at which fluoride becomes hazardous, under even the most conservative estimates, there is not enough of a margin between the accepted hazard level and the actual human exposure levels to find that fluoride is safe."

   • The lack of a safety margin is surprising given how frequently fluoride has been promoted as entirely safe at the levels used in public water systems.

6. "…scientific evidence has increasingly identified a link between fluoride exposure and adverse cognitive effects in children (reduced IQ)."

   • This recognition of a well-documented link between fluoride and cognitive damage, particularly IQ reduction, directly counters longstanding claims that fluoride exposure is benign or beneficial.

7. "The NTP Monograph reviewed 72 human epidemiological studies and concluded that fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in children, particularly at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg/L."

   • The comprehensive review by a major federal health agency emphasizes that fluoride’s harmful effects are not an isolated or minor issue, but a consistent finding across multiple studies.

8. "The risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA under Amended TSCA."

   • This direct call for regulatory action, driven by evidence of health risks from typical U.S. fluoride levels, contrasts sharply with the long-standing claims that these levels were universally safe.

9. "Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to, e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages."

   • This statement illustrates the far-reaching societal and economic consequences of even slight reductions in IQ, which are directly tied to fluoride exposure, a fact largely ignored in public discussions.

10. "Even if the toxicologically determined hazard level of 0.28 mg/L were deemed insufficiently substantiated, evidence in the record still establishes with little doubt that fluoridated drinking water presents a risk of injury to health."

    • This statement highlights the court’s confidence that, even under the most conservative interpretations, fluoride exposure from drinking water is still unsafe.

11. The court also ruled that fluoridation chemicals should not be held to a higher burden of proof simply because they are added to drinking water for perceived health benefits.

    • This challenges the traditional narrative that fluoride is exempt from the rigorous scrutiny other chemicals face, implying that its historical role in dental health doesn’t justify ignoring the risks.

The court ruling has methodically dismantled long-held assumptions about the safety of fluoride, underscoring the growing body of scientific evidence linking fluoride to neurotoxicity and developmental harm.