...will be released soon on Amazon. Full title of book is "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There."

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Fluoride-Hazardous-Drinking/dp/1603582878/...


Paul Connet is the director of the Fluoride Action Network:

http://www.fluoridealert.org


Here's a link to a review of the book linked to on the FAN site:

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/433/files/FJ2010_v43_n3_p170-173.pdf


And here's the review on Amazon:

Editorial Reviews
Review
"Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s and, in this excellent book, these three scientists have confirmed the wisdom of that decision. Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause. In any case, since fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, you don't have to force it on people."--Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology (2000) and Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, University of Gothenburg

"Alfred North Whitehead said the scientific method means leaving 'options open for revision.' An ancient Roman adage says that 'whatever touches all must be approved by all.' These characterizations of Science and democracy are the reasons for reading this book. Especially if you and your family are drinking administratively mandated fluoridated water."--Ralph Nader

"This book clearly shows that water fluoridation is poor public policy and must end. As a concerned citizen, I applaud the authors for bringing this issue to the world's attention."--Ed Asner

For anyone who has ever wondered why cities add fluoride to water-and questioned whether they should. Written with clear and easy-to-read prose, and supporting citations, The Case Against Fluoride carefully lays out the arguments against fluoridation and reasons why it should be discontinued. The authors examine the evidence on fluoridation and conclude convincingly that it should now be considered 'harmful and ineffective.'--Dr. Hardy Limeback, Professor and Head of Preventative Dentistry, University of Toronto

Product Description

"When the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950, there was little evidence of its safety. Now, six decades later and after most countries have rejected the practice, many cities and towns across the United States continue to fluoridate their water supply and the Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association continue to endorse it, despite increasing evidence that it is not only unnecessary, but potentially hazardous to human health.

In this timely and important book, Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck, and Dr. H. Spedding Micklem take a new look at the Science behind water fluoridation and argue that just because the medical establishment endorses a public health measure, that doesn't mean it's safe. In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals used to fluoridate the water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not pharmaceutical grade, but rather hazardous waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry; it is illegal to dump them into rivers and lakes or release them into the atmosphere. And water fluoridation is a prime example of one of the worst medical practices possible-forced medication with no control over the dose or who gets it. Perhaps most shocking of all, it is not subject to any federal regulation.

At once painstakingly-documented and also highly-readable, The Case Against Fluoride brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and kidneys, and argues that while there is possible value in topical applications like brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, the evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak. The Case Against Fluoride doesn't question the good intentions of dentists who support fluoridation, but rather explores the poor science, bizarre tactics, biased reviews, and puzzling motivations of a relatively small number of influential people who continue to push this practice on a largely ill-informed public."