In this video, the 60-year debate between the benefits and risks of fluoride and water fluoridation are discoursed. The participating experts are Dr. Euan Swan of the Canadian Dental Association, Dr. Paul Connett, a Chemistry Professor of St. Lawrence University and an affiliate of the Fluoride Action Network and Dr. David Locker, a Professor of Dentistry of the University of Toronto. These professionals discuss the extensive research done in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.

From a precautionary standpoint, Dr. Connett concludes,"that you've got to be weary in science of accepting authority and a lot of this has been promoted based upon endorsements ... based upon seven years of researching the literature, the benefits are very very small, the risks are possibly significant, not proven but potentially very serious. Hip fractures would be serious, IQ lowering would be serious and we don't know what it means to accumulate fluoride in the pineal gland."

In this film, Dr. J. William Hirzy testifies before the U.S. Senate on June 29th, 2000, upholding that, "water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to the American people." Dr. Hirzy, the Vice President of the Environmental Protection Agency's Headquarters Union, speaks with regards to the Safe Drinking Water Act and describes that, "the American people and especially our children are getting way too much fluoride. Two-thirds of children living in fluoridated communities have dental fluorosis on at least one tooth. Dental fluorosis is the visible manifestation of toxic over-exposure to fluoride during their developmental years."

The Fluoride Action Network presents Dr. Bill Osmunson - a general and cosmetic dentist, Brent Foster - the State Conservation Chair of the Oregon Sierra Club, and Dr. Vyvyan Howard - President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, all of whom explain their concerns about fluoride and water fluoridation.

Dr. Osmunson presents data from the World Health Organization pertaining to average tooth decay rates in countries with and without water fluoridation and asks, "If there's no benefit, why are we fluoridating?" Brent Foster analyzes fluoride toxicity among aquatic organisms and explains that, "at about one-quarter of the concentration that we put fluoride add in drinking water, you can significantly effect salmon migration." Altogether, these professionals refer to the National Academy of Science's report on this mass medication which documents the potential connection between water fluoridation and Alzheimer's disease, increased risk of certain cancers and to impacts on the neurological health of children. These are only three of, "1,700 professionals from the medical, scientific and environmental communities to sign a Statement calling for an End to Water Fluoridation Worldwide."

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D received her training as a pharmacologist and toxicologist from the University of Kansas, John Hopkins University and Harvard University. While continuing her research program with Harvard's Department of Neuropathology and Psychiatry she was appointed to the world-renowned dental research center, Forsyth Dental Institute in Boston, Massachusetts. It was here that, "Dr. Mullenix established the Department of Toxicology at Forsyth for the purpose of investigating the environmental impact of substances that were used in dentistry." At the time, Dr. Jack Hein was the head of this institute and responsible for assigning Dr. Mullenix to fluoride toxicology studies, "I wasn't too excited about studying fluoride," Mullenix reports, "because, quite frankly, it was 'good for your teeth' and all that, and I thought the studies would be basically just another control and I had no interest in fluoride."

Phyllis Mullenix proceeded to design a computer pattern recognition system to examine the effects of fluoride on the neuromotor functions of rats. It was thought by many that fluorosis was the only adverse effect of excessive fluoridation, though in the early 1990's, Dr. Mullenix, "had gathered enough data from the test and control animals ... to realize that fluoride doesn't look clean." Mullinex had concluded that, "humans are being exposed to levels of fluoride we know alters behavior in rats," and moreover, "the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans."

Dr. Mullenix was ordered to present her results to the National Institute of Dental Research, a branch of the National Institute of Health. "Then in 1994, after refining her research and findings, Dr. Mullenix presented her results to the Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology, considered probably the world's most respected publication in that field. Three days after she joyfully announced to the Forsyth Institute that she had been accepted for publication by the journal, she was dismissed from her position. What followed was a complete evaporation of all grants and funding for any of Mullenix's research. What that means in the left-brain world of scientific research, which is fueled by grants of government and corporate capital, is the equivalent to an academic burial. Her letter of dismissal from the Forsyth Institute stated as their reason for that action that her work was not "dentally related." [Fluoride research - not dentally related?] The institute's director stated, according to Mullenix, "they didn't consider the safety or the toxicity of fluoride as being their kind of science." Of course, a logical question begs itself at this last statement: Why was Dr. Mullenix assigned the study of fluoride toxicity in the first place if it was not "their kind of science"? - ccpurewater.org