Ethan A. Huff
Natural News 
Feb 27, 2013
Politics, not science, is what continues to drive the water fluoridation agenda today, and it was always the impetus behind the original passage of corrupt water fluoridation guidelines established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more than 50 years ago. But many EPA scientists, it turns out, as well as other medical and scientific experts, have bravely come out in opposition to water fluoridation over the years, a move that for many cost them their jobs and careers.
Many of those directly responsible for compiling and evaluating safety data on the health effects of fluoride, in fact, observed very early on that the chemical waste product is not at all beneficial for human health. Not only has fluoride never been shown with any sort of scientific rigor to prevent tooth decay in any tangible way, but it has actually been shown to damage teeth, as well as harm vital organs, cognitive ability, glandular function, and bone structure, among other things.
Back in 1985 when the EPA proposed doubling the maximum allowable level of fluoride to be added to water, a large number of EPA’s own scientists, legal experts, and advisory personnel, not to mention a panel of scientists tasked with evaluating fluoride for the Surgeon General’s office, came out in vehement opposition to the proposal. Fluoride, revealed the science, was not safe at the proposed levels, and should be further evaluated — many actually called for an immediate moratorium on fluoride.
But their concerns were ultimately ignored, and the EPA  decided to move forward with fluoride against the recommendations of its own scientists, who correctly pointed out that even preexisting levels of fluoride in water put people at risk of both dental and skeletal fluorosis. One outspoken opponent of fluoride , Dr. William Marcus, who was then chief toxicologist for the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, was actually fired for refusing to back down and basically shut up about the dangers of fluoride. (http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/marcus-interview/ )
Similarly, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, who was responsible for establishing the Department of Toxicology at the Forsyth Dental Research Institute (FDRI) in Massachusetts, was fired for speaking out about the results of a study she helped coordinate at Harvard University. When asked about the findings at a conference of the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), Dr. Mullenix openly admitted that many neurotoxic effects associated with fluoride had been discovered. She was soon fired from FDRI, and has since received no further grants for her research.
“I got into science because it was fun, and I would like to go back and do further studies, but I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the system,” she is quoted as saying at the time. “I find research is utterly controlled.”
EPA ignores established research proving dangers of fluoride, wages war against Americans
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
As far as the EPA is concerned, the agency continues to ignore and deny research compiled by its own scientists that proves fluoride is a damaging neurotoxin. Using the agency’s own risk control methodology, known as the “Reference Dose,” EPA scientists  discovered several decades ago that the maximum acceptable dose for fluoride is 0.000007 mg/kg of body weight a day. But the average person living in a fluoridated area today ingests about 0.01 mg/kg of body weight of fluoride a day, which is 1,428 times the maximum dose.
“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water  reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry,” concluded EPA scientists.
“For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”
Sources for this article include: