The Sonoma County Gazette: Community News Magazine
Sonoma County Gazette
| more

Photo Gallery

Fluoride - Alzheimers Disease and Copper Pipes


Fluoride - Alzheimers Disease
and Copper Pipes

By Robert Jay Rowen, MD

The fluoride debate is boiling in Sonoma County. Those drinking its water should know about some startling fluoride revelations. Recent research has connected “hidden” dots linking fluoride with the most dread of all diseases – Alzheimer’s (AD). But it may not be fluoride directly, but fluoride’s effects on your copper pipes.

Copper in your body exists as either organic copper, or metallic copper. The former is copper properly protein shielded from causing damage. Metallic or free copper ions, like free iron, can wreak havoc. Let me connect some dots for you:

1) Free copper binds to all proteins involved in AD. This includes critical proteins, that left alone, would usher out the accumulated toxic beta amyloid sludge that eventually kills neurons.  Copper inactivates the removal processes!  

2) AD patients carry higher free copper levels. 

3) Japan is an AD anomaly in the developed world. It has quite a low incidence. Interestingly, Japan neither fluoridates its water, nor are copper pipes widespread. Japan uses stainless steel. Undeveloped countries don’t use copper pipes (too expensive) and also have far lower rates of AD. 

4) Free copper is significantly elevated in blood of AD patients compared to age matched controls. Higher copper levels also correlated with less cognitive function, and greater rate of future cognitive decline.

5) Zinc is copper’s natural antagonist. Zinc has protected cognitive decline in both animal and human studies. 

corrosion inside copper pipesChlorination is required for safety of drinking water. However chlorine compounds alone corrode lead containing brass, and will increase lead concentrations from 100 ppb to 200 ppb in drinking water.  A 2005 California symposium pointed to copper pipe failure caused by the use of chloramines used in California water systems to extend the disinfecting power of chlorine.  Chloramines aggressively leach copper and other metals from whatever it touches. 

So how does fluoride fit in? Tacoma had to close down fluoridation in its system in 1992. Fluoridated water had eaten away metallic copper from its pipes, exposing lead in fittings. Lead levels soared. When fluoridation was stopped, lead fell, only to rise again when fluoride was restarted. Fluorsilicic acid caused lead levels to spike to over 900 ppb. Fluoride’s addition creates ammonium fluosilicate, an established solvent for metallic copper alloys. Other cities have documented clear dangerous lead drinking water elevations after fluoridation began (Lebanon, OR, NYC, Thurmont MD). 

Fluoridation may contribute to calcification (destruction) of the pineal gland in humans at an early age. The pineal makes critical melatonin (a protective and sleep associated hormone). The National Research Council is concerned about fluoride’s effect on melatonin production. Melatonin protects against fluoride toxicity, so we may have a vicious cycle of fluoride eliminating our protection, exacerbating its toxicity. The aged calcified pineal gland has about the same amount of fluoride as do teeth – not good. 

America has an epidemic of degenerative joint disease (DJD). Even doctors don’t know that spinal and other joint DJD is x-ray indistinguishable from fluorosis (overt fluoride poisoning).  Much DJD that modern medicine has diagnosed might actually be fluorosis. One of my patients with hip DJD, needing replacement, had the veracity to send his removed joint to France for fluoride testing. It was LOADED! Medicine should routinely test for bone fluoride in these orthopaedic procedures! 

Fluoride, at levels added to drinking water, significantly inhibits DNA polymerase, the enzyme that builds and repairs DNA. The “safety” window is exceptionally small. There’s no way to control for total individual dose. Consider: bread, sodas, prepared/canned food, processed foods, may all be made with fluoridated water. Even bottled water often comes from fluoridated sources. And worse, contrary to the pundits promoting fluoride, what is added to water has NO relation to natural fluoride. The latter is calcium fluoride,  far safer than sodium fluoride or the even more toxic silicofluorides (usually used). 

Sonoma county supervisors would do well to heed concerns of the voters rather than the medical industry regarding fluoridation, and permanently reject exposing their citizens to this well-known potentially dementia related poison. Please let them know!


You may reach Robert Jay Rowen, MD for comment at 


Re: "Fluoride - Alzheimers Disease and Copper Pipes"

Robert Jay Rowen, MD, is creating a tempest in a teapot.

Fluorosilicic acid does not come out of the tap. It doesn't even go into the city or private home plumbing. When it is added to water (in very minute amounts) at the water plant, it immediately breaks down into three things:  

1.) water,

2.) silica (i.e. sand) which is 
filtered out, and

3.) fluoride ions.  

These ion are identical to the fluoride ions found in all ground water.  Any acidity in drinking 
water is adjusted at the water plant before the water leaves.

Furthermore, fluorosilicic acid is monitored for purity by the National Sanitation Foundation with standards that exceed those of the FDA.  The EPA has authority over community water fluoridation and 
it finds it safe for humans and the environment.  The FDA is out of the picture because fluoridation levels of fluoride are so small that there is no possibility of overdosing.

I recommend the policy statement on fluoridation published by the Institute for Science in Medicine.

Linda Rosa, RN
Loveland, CO

Leaching of lead in association with HFA. Urbansky and Schock put this issue completely to rest.

“Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead II compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.”

——Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
Urbansky, E.T., Schock, M.R.
Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2O00, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637

Next, let’s address the common confusion that you, Paul, Hirzy, and other opponents have between “pharmaceutical grade fluoride” and that from HFA. As I’m sure you’re aware, Hirzy’s recent petition to the EPA to cease HFA in favor of “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride” was summarily rejected by the EPA due to the fact that they easily discovered an elementary mathematics error by Hirzy which, when corrected, demonstrated his data to show just the opposite of what he had claimed it did.

According to the CDC. Please pay special attention to the next to last paragraph in this quote:

“Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water.

The U.S. Pharmacopeia-National Formulary (USP-NF) presents monographs on tests and acceptance criteria for substances and ingredients by manufacturers for pharmaceuticals. The USP 29 NF–24 monograph on sodium fluoride provides no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. That leaves the manufacturer with the responsibility of quality assurance and reporting. Some potential impurities have no restrictions by the USP including arsenic, some heavy metals regulated by the U.S. EPA, and radionuclides.

The USP does not provide specific protection levels for individual contaminants, but tries to establish a relative maximum exposure level of a group of related contaminants. The USP does not include acceptance criteria for fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate.

Given the volumes of chemicals used in water fluoridation, a pharmaceutical grade of sodium fluoride for fluoridation could potentially contain much higher levels of arsenic, radionuclides, and regulated heavy metals than a NSF/ANSI Standard 60-certified product.

AWWA-grade sodium fluoride is preferred over USP-grade sodium fluoride for use in water treatment facilities because the granular AWWA product is less likely to result in dusting exposure of water plant operators than the more powder-like USP-grade sodium fluoride.”


Next, in regard to arsenic contaminants which may be present in fluoridated water at the tap, your anecdotal opinion and “calculations” are irrelevant. The United States Environmental Agency is the regulatory body of the United States charged with and empowered by the U.S. Government to ensure that the public water supplies are safe for consumption by our citizenry. In carrying out this duty, the EPA has set a maximum level of safety for contaminants, called the maximum contaminant level. (MCL). As a further measure of enduring the safety of the public, however, the EPA does not settle for MCL of water contaminants. Instead, it mandates that all water contaminants must meet the stringent certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 certification requires that no contaminant at the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements. If it did not, it would not be allowed by the EPA. Arsenic, the most prevalent contaminant detected in fluoridated water has been detected in only 50% of the fluoridated water samples tested by NSF. Additionally, in order to detect arsenic in ANY samples, it took 10 times the normal manufacturer recommended amount of HFA in those samples. The maximum amount of arsenic detected in those 50% was only 60% of the maximum allowed under Standard 60, which was only 10% of the EPA MCL. The amount of arsenic was so miniscule that it is not even a certainty that the amount detected using 10 times the normal amount of HFA was not that which already existed in the water “naturally”. Any other contaminants detected in fluoridated water were more miniscule than arsenic.

You may certainly argue your personal, anecdotal opinion on the safety level of arsenic against the scientific findings and standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but I don’t much like your chances.


Next, the CDC and the EPA did not recommend “lowering fluoride concentrations from 1.0 ppm to .7 ppm.” In 2011, in recognition of the fact of more fluoride availability from sources outside water now, than were present when the initial optimal level of fluoride was set as a range between 0.7 ppm and 1.2 ppm, the CDC recommended that the optimal level be changed to simply the lower end of that initial range, 0.7 ppm. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the government entity responsible for establishing the optimal level of fluoride, has not yet affirmed that recommendation, but is expected to do so. This is exactly how our regulatory oversight bodies should work. It is not any sort of negative, as opponents seem set on attempting to portray it.

“More than 40 states have laws or regula­tions requiring product compliance with Standard 60. NSF tests the fluoride chemicals for the 11 regulated metal compounds that have an EPA MCL. In order for a product [for example, fluorosilicic acid] to meet certification standards, regulated metal contaminants must be present at the tap [in the home] at a con­centration of less than ten percent of the MCL when added to drinking water at the recommended maxi­mum use level. The EPA has not set any MCL for the silicates as there is no known health concerns, but Standard 60 has a Maximum Allowable Level (MAL) of 16 mg/L for sodium silicates as corrosion control agents primarily for turbidity reasons. NSF tests have shown the silicates in the water samples from public water systems to be well below these levels.”

——Reeves TG. Current technology on the engineering aspects of water fluoridation. Paper presented at National Fluoridation Summit, September 8, 2000 Sacramento, CA.

people should read this

Anyone who takes statements at face value from the EPA and the CDC is sadly misled.  Historically, the EPA has been forced by court order to reinstate a scientist who they fired because they did not like his objective fluoride research. And the EPA continues to shift around from their responsibility with fluoridation, but do not add hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) to open water, that they will object to!  The CDC, which has been pushing this political policy for 60 years, cannot back down or they will lose a major battle, good will, and the confidence of the American people.

Where are your chronic toxiological studies on populations who have been ingesting HFSA for years, lifetimes now? There are none.  Even pharmaceutical grade calcium fluoride has NEVER been approved by the FDA for ingestion.  I have an independent chemical evaluation of HFSA from a professional laboratory in New Jersey.  When asked to explain the report, the engineer who signed the report said, "there is too much arsenic in here to be accepted by some landfills"  She did not know that the chemical sample was from a water company. and was HFSA destined for the public water system.  Imagine, too much arsenic for a landfill...but let's put it in our water and drink it.  The NSF is a trade organization which has industry people on it's board, they do not monitor HFSA, an industrial grade product, they rubber stamp it.

The ADA is another issue, They receive revenue from every tube of fluoride toothpaste or fluoride product with their logo on it. Their dentists receive revenue from fluoride treatments in their offices.  If the public begins to realize how poisonous fluoride is, the ADA/dentists stand to lose a great deal of money.  The World Health Organization statistics show that the dental health of NON-fluoridated countries is just as good if not better than fluoridated countries, US is one of the few left. Israel will be ending fluoridation this year.  Nobel prize winning scientist who have spoken out against fluoridation. There is no reason that US citizens should continue be subjected to this poison, HFSA.

 Fluoridation is completely unethical in the light of 2014 bioethic standards. To mass "medicate" a population regardess of their age, size, health status, sensitivities (people are allergic to minute amounts), and without their informed consent, is very wrong.  Developing fetal and infant brains are extremely vulnerable to a neurotoxin like HFSA, yet the CDC does not require municipalities to warn mothers.  Infants can receive 300 times the "dose" which is intended for an adult when mothers mix infant formula with tap water.  41% of our teenagers(CDC) now have dental fluorosis, a symptom of fluoride toxicity which is also building up in their bones. The ADA, calls that simply a cosmetic issue, indeed it is NOT.

Fluoridation is an absurd policy, and those who stand behind "Fluoridation conferences"(organized by pro-fluoride lobby) and recommendations from longtime fluoridation proponents do not want to see the truth. Please take a quick look at this news footage (WQAD) and you will see how highly caustic and toxic HFSA truly is, and ask yourself.... is it healthful for me to ingest this poison no matter how dilute it is? .... the answer is simply NO.

Fluoride Free America

E. Beverly

Yes, intact fluorosilicic acid is not present in water at neutral pH. It dissociates into fluoride ion and silicic acid.  However, silicic acid is the intact acid and is a soluble molecule.  It is not a sand particle that settles out or is filtered easily.  Intact silicic acid can react with lead salts commonly found in old lead-based plumbing. This is believed to be why fluorosilicic acid treated water causes high blood lead levels in consumers,  while sodium fluoride does not.

  The EPA relinquished its regulatory authority over fluoridation regulation many decades ago and specifically does not have authority because this action treats people with a material argued to be an ingestible dental prophylactic.  EPA has no means or ability to monitor such whole body fluoridation for either its safety or its effectiveness in a given city, or to monitor blood levels of fluoride, or to monitor incidence of tooth fluorosis or effects of ingested fluoride on those with illnesses such as kidney disease. Such scrutiny lies only with the FDA. The FDA ruled that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient, when added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, banned the sale of fluoride compounds to be ingested by pregnant women in the U.S. due to lack of effectiveness, that fluoride is not safe to add to food, and that fluoridated water cannot be used in kidney dialysis equipment due to increased morbidity in kidney patients who were chronically so treated.

  HHS recommended fluoride maximum levels not exceed 0.7 ppm specifically because 41% of U.S. teens as of 2005 had permanent abnormal unsightly tooth enamel fluorosis, the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. The fluoridationist argument that the recommendation was not a response to this adverse effect is incorrect.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. Chemistry
Palomar College, San Marcos, CA

“Leaching of lead in association with HFA. Urbansky and Schock put this issue completely to rest.”

Not according to Coplan, Masters et al.

They say

“4.1. Urbansky and Schock

Without studying data or statistical methodology of the findings summarized in II A, EPA chemists produced an EPA ‘‘Work Product’’ detailing why SiFs are ‘‘almost completely’’ dissociated at 1 ppm F[1]and can’t influence PbB (Urbansky and Schock, 2000). The issue was framed as a question of residual concentration of the fluosilicate ion [SiF6]2[1] after hydrolysis which should be predictable from reversible equilibrium thermodynamics and reaction kinetics theory. If theory applied, no [SiF6]2[1] would remain in drinking water at equilibrium with 1 ppm of F[1].

However, residual [SiF6]2[1], as such, is not the issue. Its total absence does not obviate survival of some fluorine-bearing SiF derivatives. Moreover, ‘‘at equilibrium’’ implies an end state that cannot be predicted without precise knowledge of SiF’s ab initio status. As much as 30 ppm of silica may already be in raw water (ASTM, 1994) and silicates are sometimes used in the water plant for flocculation. Both of these conditions would influence dissociation end results. This is further confounded by what a phosphate fertilizer expert told an international technical conference of peers (Smith, 1999):

‘‘The chemical formula of fluosilicic acid [FSA] is H2SiF6. However, things are not as simple as that due to the fact that rarely is fluosilicic acid present as pure H2SiF6. . .there are well reported references to the existence of H2SiF6 SiF4. . . Hereon in this presentation, FSA means a mixture of HF, H2SiF6 and H2SiF6 SiF4’’.

In 2001, EPA research managers concluded it was necessary to clarify SiF dissociation. In 2002, EPA issued a ‘‘Request for Assistance’’ (RFA) inviting research proposals on methods to detect and measure SiF dissociation products. For the benefit of prospective bidders, Urbansky wrote an extensive review of SiF dissociation studies (Urbansky, 2002), in which he concluded that hydroxo-fluoro SiF derivatives could survive in drinking water and opined: ‘‘. . . it is probably best to stop using qualified expressions such as ‘virtually complete’ or ‘essentially complete’ in favor of more rigorous and quantitative descriptions [of SiF dissociation] even if that hinders communication with the lay public.’’


Silicofluorides (SiFs), fluosilicic acid (FSA) and sodium fluosilicate (NaFSA), are used to fluoridate over 90% of US fluoridated municipal water supplies. Living in communities with silicofluoride treated water (SiFW) is associated with two neurotoxic effects: (1) Prevalence of children with elevated blood lead (PbB > 10 mg/dL) is about double that in non-fluoridated communities (Risk Ratio 2, x2 p < 0.01). SiFW is associated with serious corrosion of lead-bearing brass plumbing, producing elevated water lead (PbW) at the faucet. New data refute the long-prevailing belief that PbW contributes little to children’s blood lead (PbB), it is likely to contribute 50% or more. (2) SiFW has been shown to interfere with cholinergic function. Unlike the fully ionized state of fluoride (F-) in water treated with sodium fluoride (NaFW), the SiF anion, [SiF6]2- in SiFW releases F- in a complicated dissociation process. Small amounts of incompletely dissociated [SiF6]2- or low molecular weight (LMW) silicic acid SA) oligomers may remain in SiFW. A German PhD study found that SiFW is a more powerful inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) than NaFW. It is proposed here that SiFW induces protein mis-folding via a mechanism that would affect polypeptides in general, and explain dental fluorosis, a tooth enamel defect that is not merely ‘‘cosmetic’’ but a ‘‘canary in the mine’’ foretelling other adverse, albeit subtle, health and behavioral effects. Efforts to refute evidence of such effects are analyzed and rebutted. In 1999 and 2000, senior EPA personnel admitted they knew of no health effects studies of SiFs. In 2002 SiFs were nominated for NTP animal testing. In 2006 an NRC Fluoride Study Committee recommended such studies. It is not known at this writing whether any had begun.

© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1032-42. Epub 2007 Mar 1. Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals. Coplan MJ, Patch SC, Masters RD, Bachman MS.


Intellequity Technology Services Natick, Massachusetts, United States.

The complete study can be found here:


Perth, Australia

Dear Vesta,
Would you please be so kind as to post the following in the comment section on the subject of fluoridation?

Dear Dr. Steven Slott,

As such a highly respected and well educated dentist I am sure that you are very well aware that certain of your patients are allergic and/or sensitive to certain drugs and/or materials that are used in dentistry. Please answer each and every question–

1. When a new patient comes to your office for treatment do you have them fill out a questionnaire first so you can identify which drugs and/or materials a patient is allergic and/or sensitive to? Yes or No

2. Would you just go ahead and treat them without having this vital information in advance? Yes or No

3. If you answered “Yes” to 2., what would the legal and moral implications of your doing this be? Please Explain

4. If you answered “No” to 2, why you would not do it? Please Explain

5. If a patient discloses to you that they are allergic and/or sensitive to a certain drug and/or material what do you do? Would you go ahead and use it anyway since most of your other patients tolerate the drug and/or material? Yes or No

6. If you answered “Yes” to 5, why would you think it would be legally and ethically all right for you to do so? Please Explain

7. If you answered “No” to 5, is it because you could inflict harm and even possibly kill the allergic/sensitive patient? Yes or No

8. If you never met me would you come to my house and without knowing my medical history and which drugs and/or materials I am allergic and/or sensitive to force me to ingest or apply to my skin a drug and/or material? Yes or No

9. If you would do such a thing why would you think it was safe or ethical to do so? Please Explain

10. If you would not do such a thing why wouldn’t you? Please Explain

11. Would you urge anyone else to come to my house and do that to me? Yes or No

12. If not why not? Please Explain

13. As a dental professional are you aware that allergic/sensitive reactions to various drugs and/or materials can vary from individual to individual and that different people can exhibit different reactions. For example one person could get nauseated or another could become dizzy or another may suffer a fatal episode of Anaphylaxis? Yes or No

14. Considering that approximately 1% of the population is allergic/sensitive to fluoride do you think that segment of the population ought to be forced to ingest artificially fluoridated water and to apply it to their skin which results in dermal absorption–for example every time they wash their hands or take a shower? Yes or No

15. I am one of those people who are allergic/sensitive to fluoride. In my case exposure to artificially fluoridated water results in serious and potentially fatal reactions. I do not have to drink it to suffer these symptoms–simple dermal exposure results in my suffering the same reactions because it is absorbed directly through the skin and is disseminated systemically. Do you think I should be forced to have fluoridated water? Yes or No

16. If you answered “Yes” why do you think so? Please Explain

17. If you answered “No” why do you think so? Please Explain

18. Knowing that a certain segment of the population is allergic/sensitive to fluoride do you believe that it is ethically and legally permissible for you to publicly proclaim that artificial fluoridation is safe without providing a qualifying statement that it is harmful to a certain segment of the population? Yes or No

Of course artificial fluoridation has numerous other detrimental systemic health effects–for instance on the thyroid, kidneys, brain, bones etc. However I want to confine my questions and your answers to just this one specific aspect–that of allergy/sensitivity to fluoride.

I do not want my time wasted with proclamations of the prevalence of fluoride such as the amounts of calcium fluoride found in nature. Nickel is also a common naturally occurring and widely prevalent element yet is well known to be a strong allergic sensitizer. For example almost all of us know someone who cannot wear jewelry which contains nickel. Hopefully you would be so incompetent so as to placeM a nickel based crown, for example, into the mouth of a patient with nickel sensitivity and then when the patient reacted badly proclaim that it did not matter that you had acted in such a reckless manner because nickel is such a prevalent element that the patient could not avoid it completely.

Thus please confine your answers to the specific above questions which I have numbered for your convenience. I am looking forward to reading the responses you will provide. Please number your responses to correspond with the questions.

* I have asked the exact same questions of you which I have copied and pasted above on numerous other comment sections but you have yet to answer them. Neither would pro-fluoridationist Johnny Johnson D.D.S. who frequently appeared on the same comment sections that you did. Instead both of you tried every trick in the book to evade answering them. Something is very wrong when neither of you would answer very simple and easy questions which would only have taken a few minutes.

Please simply answer the 18 very easy questions. Do not yet again evade answering. Do not go off on other tangents. Do not bring up other subjects I have not even asked about. Do not make nasty and rude remarks. Do not make untrue and deliberately misleading remarks and claims. Do not attempt to falsely claim that allergy and/or hypersensitivity to fluoride does not exist when it is clearly described in the peer reviewed medical literature and on numerous products and drugs themselves as you well know because I previously provided the literature citations to you. You have repeatedly done all of these things. Please confine your responses to the questioned asked and number your responses to correspond to the questions.