Concerned Citizens Warned of Fluoride Dangers in the ’50s, but We’re Still Drinking It Anyway

By on February 12, 2015

(Originally published at Truthstream

With renewed interest by activists, scientists and concerned citizens in removing fluoride from municipal water supplies across the country, it is useful to remember that fluoridation has always been controversial.

Even as use of the chemical was being introduced as a “benefit to teeth”, many people of the day were already armed with information to put them on guard and make them outraged at the ill conceived and perhaps nefarious scheme thrust upon the population.

The following is not an exhaustive account of the battle against fluoride, which has affected the long-term health of nearly everyone in the United States and much of the Western world whether they know it or not, but these newspaper clippings hold some interesting clues and fragments that to piece together more or less how this monstrosity came to be in spite of the fact that many people were sharply against it – and with good reason.

Much of the history of water fluoridation has been documented in detailed works including Dr. Paul Connett’s The Case against Fluoride and Christopher Bryson’s The Fluoride Deception.

Remember, water is used for much more than just drinking – it is obviously also used for bathing, cooking, cleaning, gardening, irrigation, swimming and industrial processes such as cooling as well.

It permeates our lives, and fluoride has created an ongoing source of background contamination that is uniquely added to our environment deliberately under false pretenses.

In short, the convenient disposal of fluoride waste by-products from the aluminum, fertilizer and nuclear industries into the general water supply was sold on the rather ridiculous pretext that it was for the “benefit of teeth”, particularly children. This is the crux of how the measure was pushed, but that push came with plenty of controversy.

As you can see from these 1954 letters to the editor in the Oregon Statesman, many people grasped that fluoridation of the water supply amounted to forced medication, which many people dreaded after learning about the dangers of this cumulative poison. Instead, as two of these letters argued, families in favor of fluoride treatments were already free to pick some up at the drug store at a relatively inexpensive price, and leave everyone else’s children out of it:


“If you are in favor of trying out this scheme, by all means do so. That is your privilege. The thing for you to do is to get the stuff at the drugstore and try it out on your own children, or still better, on your own body. There is no law against committing slow suicide if you think that a diluted dose of fluorine won’t hurt you if a stronger one will kill… you have no right to ram anything down the other fellow’s throat against his will. The majority rule should have its limitations, and I for one just don’t like the idea of having to eat or drink out of the ballot-box, if you catch the point,” writes one Hugo Mayerhoefer of Salem, Oregon.

As his letter notes, there was an incident of “mass murder” in an Oregon prison, after an inmate allegedly poisoned the eggs of several hundred prisoners with sodium fluoride, killing 47.


It is shocking that these events have not been part of any modern debate about one of the most dangerous public health decisions that have been thrust upon the people in the last century.


You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Please support the site
By clicking any of these buttons you help our site to get better