Growing up and having Fluoride in the water was a big deal for stronger teeth. It was also in toothpaste. There is a whole industry that has grown up around the use of Fluoride in the water and in toothpaste. In Boot Camp, we were given a special and stronger treatment of fluoride. Now they are coming out with reasons not to use Fluoride above a certain level. ​

Global Water – Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. recently sent a notice to customers in the City of Maricopa regarding the level of fluoride in drinking water.  The drinking water in the City of Maricopa meets all requirements of the Safe Water Drinking Act.  However, we notified customers in 2023 and again in 2024, that the fluoride levels were increasing.  We also began making necessary operational changes to address the fluoride level and reduce the level so that the water will continue to meet Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.

Global Water did recommend the water not be drunk by those under a certain age. (12?).

E & E News 

as provided by R. J. Sigmund

In a first-of-its-kind ruling, a federal district court said teeth-strengthening chemicals added to drinking water pose an “unreasonable risk,” a designation prompting EPA regulations under the nation’s premier toxics law. The landmark decision, published late Tuesday from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, marks a rare occasion where a judge ruled on the scientific merits and sided against agency experts.

Senior Judge Edward Chen found the level of fluoridation chemicals that health and EPA officials consider “optimal” — 0.7 milligram per liter — “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.”

“It should be noted that this finding does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health,” Chen wrote, adding that his decision rather reflects “a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.

What EPA’s response looks like can vary greatly, from a warning label to an outright ban.

“One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk,” wrote Chen, an Obama appointee.

It’s the first time a judge has decided if a chemical poses an unreasonable risk after EPA rejected a petition asking the agency to do the same thing — a new citizen privilege under the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act.

It’s also one of the first times a federal court has been tasked with interpreting “unreasonable risk,” a TSCA term left undefined.

The ruling is a monumental win for anti-fluoride groups, who sued in April 2017 after EPA denied their  petition asking for a ban on adding additional fluoridation chemicals to drinking water. Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, one of the plaintiff groups, called the ruling “an important acknowledgment of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water.” Hauter said in a statement.

“This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans. Especially our most vulnerable infants and children from this known health threat.”

EPA spokesperson Remmington Belford said the agency “is reviewing the decision,” and did not answer whether or not it will appeal the decision.

Approximately 75 percent of the U.S. population gets their drinking water from public systems with fluoridated chemicals. Local authorities have been fluoridating tap water systems since the 1940s, at the advice of public health officials who championed the chemicals for fighting tooth decay and cavities.

Research has long shown that high concentrations can lead to weaker bones and impaired brain development.

EPA has regulated fluoride in drinking water since 1986, capping concentrations at a maximum of 4 milligrams per liter. Water systems with levels above 2 milligrams per liter must provide public notice.

Growing evidence indicates lower levels also impact brain function, something EPA scientists testified against throughout the cumulative three weeks of trial, citing inconclusive data.

A recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services concluded levels as low as 1.5 milligrams per liter are associated with lower IQ in children.