An Inconvenient Tooth

An Inconvenient ToothAn Inconvenient Tooth is a documentary film about the water fluoridation controversy which arises from moral, ethical, political, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies.

The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation. Instead, fluoride is added to most table salt in Europe.

Those opposed argue that water fluoridation imposes ethical issues, may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled.

The weight of the scientific evidence have found that at the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development.

This effect is mildly cosmetic and is unlikely to represent any real effect on public health. Despite opponents' concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.

Watch the full documentary now

Ratings: 7.41/10 from 29 users.

More great documentaries

50 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Matt van den Ham

    I was talking to my friend who works at the water filtration plant and he says that there's a certain amount of fluoride that naturally occurs in the air, so if you think that 0.% is harmful then you'd better start breathing in air from a mask. Also it should be understood that city water is mostly intended for cleaning, so it would probably be wise to buy a filtration system or spring water for drinking, not because of fluoride content but because most of the hydrating minerals have been destroyed from the chlorination process. Personally I would be more concerned with the chlorine content that fluoride.

  2. willda

    And a lot of people don't realize that fluoride can occur in groundwater, as well - I had a drilled well and it had enough fluoride in it that I didn't have to give my children the drops. We only realized it after the kids got those white spots on their teeth and then we tested the water (again - we had done it some years earlier after it was drilled) - the pediatrician was dumbfounded - he had never heard of that.

  3. Tracy Parow

    It's important to know that any cavity prevention effects from fluoride occur as a result from ingesting NATURALLY occurring fluoride. The fluoride in the fluoridated drinking water programs is NOT naturally occurring but an industrial additive. The effects of cavity protection do not accrue to the industrial additive: people have been systematically manipulated to believe they are doing something healthy when they drink industrially fluoridated water, the meme is difficult to break.

  4. David Ewer

    Once I found out that Edward Bernays was hired to promote flouridation of the drinking water I realised this was serious. The folk on the film seemed serious and believable to me. Now I'm concerned at the practice and think it's probably wrong.
    Our teeth would be a whole lot better if we didn't eat rubbish - that's the best way to improve health.

  5. KsDevil

    There are many types of Flouride. The good flouride compounds are often misrepresented for the toxic flouride compounds when using blanket terminology.
    But presenting 2 1/2 hours of a one sided verbal discussion without any scientific evidence (other than vague referrals) is the equivalent of 'if you say something long enough and repeat it often, it will become a truth'.

  6. Mediaskop

    agree.. on the last sentence! 'If you promote a lie(that flouride is an essential solution for poor teeths)a thosand times then it will become a truth'...

  7. Jack1952

    Not much substance. Would have liked to have one complainers present solid evidence of the claims made. They mention research but never show any specific data. It was a parade of individuals saying the same thing over and over. They could be right but they should show us why they are right.

  8. thisismyspamemail

    The dental association cannot give any positive evidence to the benefits of fluoride just as this video does not give you the evidence you say was not presented from those opposing fluoridation. There are many pesticides that use fluoride as a main ingredient. That fact alone makes me leery of fluoridation.

  9. Jack1952

    Some pesticides have water in them...doesn't make water bad. They are taking the moral high ground by their concern for the health of the general public. If they do not present the backup for their claims they are no better than those who champion fluoridation and the moral high ground cannot be claimed. They spent over two hours saying fluoridation is bad for you. Fluoridation is bad for you. I did it one sentence. The rest of the time would have been better spent giving us the details why I, or anyone, should believe this statement.

  10. thisismyspamemail

    Funny example. Water is the one thing in life we cannot live without. Fluoride from chemical companies we can live without. Water is not poisonous to us unless it has a pesticide or other toxin in it. Saying water is in pesticides is really comical actually. Some pesticides are oil based. Go ahead and enjoy your pesticides Mister. ;)

  11. Jack1952

    I used this as an example to show that your statement may not be valid. To say that something is in pesticides doesn't make that something automatically harmful. I did not endorse or criticize the use of pesticides, either.

    This video did not give any ammunition that I could use in an argument against fluoridation. All It did was validate the opinions of those who are against it. It is a video about a group of individuals who agree with each other and, although they say that studies have shown that fluoridation may be bad for you, they did not refer us to any one of those studies. In that they failed, big time.

  12. Geoffrey Grekin

    All you need is a have is a little common sense to understand the Fluoride situation..
    Why would the water-supply that is used by everyone be laced with fluoride?

    This is kind of strange concept, unheard of in our capitalistic society. If this was truly such a great product then why not sell it and make money off it? (toothpaste, lol). In fact, for dentists to introduce this to the water supply to supposedly help teeth growth, it would effectively loose millions of potential customers in the future.
    To highlight this point, in our food we have genetically modified food, pesticides, preservatives, chemicals.. None of which takes our health into consideration but is a much boon on health industry.
    If there was really a need for public health on such a massive scale, there is plenty they could do to regulate the food-supply and ensure that bad harmful chemicals be dramatically reduced at the cost of suppliers (FDA has failed us here)

    So why? Whats going on? Whats the whole point of Fluoridation of the water supply... truly?

    Fluoride is a chemical, a drug.. simply? Look at some of the products that use it as ingestion (Prozac; if I recall included high doses).
    Perhaps, and this is only a hypothetical argument (no hard data), that the true motive for fluoridation is to numb the wider population into subservient subdued populace.

    Hey its just a thought? It would certainly make more sense than simply making our teeth stronger.
    Think about it.

  13. mark1667

    Whether it works, is toxic or ineffective, there is one argument that ought to be mentioned. Whether people have the right not to be forced medicated. If fluoride truly works then fine, swish it around in your own mouth but at least give people the option.

  14. dewflirt

    Most of the UK does not add fluoride to its water and the decision to do so lies with the local health authorities. A decision that can only be made after public consultation. My local council is against it on the grounds that mass medication is against a European convention on human rights, fluoride is available already in toothpaste for those that want it, there is no clear evidence that adding it to drinking water improves dental health, that it is an hexafluorocillicic acid made from by products of the fertilizer industry, that there is considerable evidence that fluoride (more toxic that lead) increases the chances of cancer and tumour growth rates, and lastly that calcium levels in the body fall as fluoride increases. It has been shown that there is a higher incidence of hip fractures in the elderly in fluoridated areas. For these same reasons many health authorities that used to add fluoride to water have now stopped.

  15. dmxi

    the nazis used it first in the kz's to make the inmates docile & then the soviets followed that principle in the gulags,then america.....
    ....see,where thats going?

  16. Frederick Lepnil

    If they care about our health so much, why dont they put vitamins and minerals in our tap water as well. Very strange

  17. Bad_Conduct

    Source that quote please. I'm pretty sure that's been debunked.

  18. WTC7

    I was looking for information about fluoride in water and found out that the water we drink contains amounts of it that are within the safe parameters that present no danger to human health (although higher dosages are poisonous).

    But then I thought of whether it accumulates in our bodies and found the following:

    "Does fluoride accumulate in the body?

    Yes. Approximately half of each day's fluoride intake will be retained. This is what makes it so dangerous. "The dose makes the poison". All sides agree to the fact that healthy kidneys can eliminate only about 50% of daily fluoride intake. The rest gets absorbed in calcified tissues, like bones and teeth.

    The National Academy Of Sciences (NAS) stated in 1977 that, for the average individual, a retention of 2mg/day would result in crippling skeletal fluorosis after 40 years. Considering the above-mentioned intake level, it is likely that skeletal fluorosis already affects a significant portion of the population.

    Children, the elderly and any person with impaired kidney function (which includes many AIDS patients), are in the high-risk group for fluoride poisoning and must be warned to monitor their fluoride intake. Also at high risk are people with immunodeficiencies, diabetes and heart ailments, as well as anyone with calcium, magnesium and Vitamin C deficiencies.

    (At the level of 0.4 ppm renal (kidney) impairment has been shown.) (Junco, L.I. et al, "Renal Failure and Fluorosis", Fluorine & Dental Health, JAMA 222:783 - 785, 1972)"

  19. xxconspiracyxx

    it's a plot in controlling the worlds population with putting lots of different kinds of shite into our waters. i.e to effect fertility, shorter life span, 3rd nipples,

    we'll all be out of fresh water one day and have no option but to drink recycled piss water.

  20. AlfBeta

    Logical, Geoffrey. This mass cvompulsory medication was sudden, unprecedented and widespread. Read the history of its "trial" in U.S. town, and the man who brought the message of Good Fluoride?

  21. Jack1952

    If "they" wanted a passive population why are "they" so dead set against the population smoking pot. That would be a passive population.

    Like you said, it is just a thought. Scenarios come easy when you are not governed by hard facts.

  22. Jo McKay

    Not balanced or un biased. but if u r against added fluoride
    in drinking water you'll agree w the film. my take is...somebody
    do some research and share for why....i say follow the money ...
    Whose making coin? There is your villain.

  23. Rohitash Tewari

    Lol! Tap water in New Delhi *is* recycled piss. It had to be done in the '80's. Come, join the club.

  24. IzirAtig

    I believe smoking pot won't make people passive unless they just lay on couch while they do it. My own experience is that pot make's people thinking new ways and it's fun with excercise or sport too. I mean with active life it won't make you passive.

  25. xxconspiracyxx

    excellent, send me a few bottles, i'm having a fancy dinner party.

  26. RuskyJim

    "Despite opponents’ concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults."

    Can the person responsible for writing the "description" at the top of this documentary please back up this statement.

    As far as I can tell there have been NO studies to date that back up ingestion of fluoride as being beneficial in any way, shape, or form. Topical Calcium Fluoride has shown some benefits as far as hardening enamel, but that is not what this documentary is about.

    It would be nice to see the documentary description posted rather than the biased viewpoint of one person.

    I'm sure most people are quite capable of making up their own mind.

  27. Jack1952

    I was being a little facetious when I used pot smoking as an example. I have days when I do lay about the house and do little. Other days I get on my bike and I peddle around the countryside for eight to ten hours. Either way, I do not blame the tap water for the mood I happen to be in that day. The idea that there is some malevolent human overseer that wants to control my life seems a little over the top. Why would anyone want to do that? I'm just not that important...just a guy with an opinion. You know what they say about opinions. They're like your butt hole....everyone has one.

  28. Isabelle

    It's all good folks... You'll be braindead but at least you'll have good teeth!

  29. Vlatko

    Good one. That is probably the most recent systematic review of studies, which unfortunately has pretty much the same flaws.

    1. All studies were done in China.
    2. Many of the studies were incomplete.
    3. No definitive conclusion.

    However there are many good points there and authors consider the data compilation and joint analysis an important first step in evaluating the potential risk.

  30. Geoffrey Grekin

    @ Jack1952

    I didn't find your pot-smoking analogy helpful. Honestly if the government did legalize pot, you won't see soccer moms and joe the plumber type Americans jumping on the hippy-dippy pot smoking ban-wagon would you?
    Furthermore, the hypothetical success of fluoride in subduing a populace must certainly rely on its subtlety and far reaching dynamic; something weed couldn't do, even if its effect were truly subduing, which I don't believe is the case.

    I'd also like to address this question.
    "Why would some malevolent human overseer want to control my life?"

    You may not be aware, but throughout history for the last several hundred years there have been mounting revolutions, riots and unrest occurring by the grievances of mass populations; a.k.a Social anxiety. Things like growing inequality, wars, financial instability, environmental disasters, political disconnection (insert problem) are just some of examples that might incite mass movements creating a potential melting pot. Consequently these huge social movements can becomes game changing for those interests that benefit off the status-quo.

    So yes, the manipulation and control of mass population is certainly something many take into consideration, history is a testament to this need of a subdued population..

    The Romans with the Gladiator competitions in Rome was perhaps the first and most successful (still being used today in form of Sports) and this has continued even into our modern world with identifiable entities that excelled in this aspect; Nazi propaganda by Joseph Gerbils, or Communist Propaganda of the second world war... Certainly the trend has continued and evolved profoundly and is all present in our daily lives.

    If you are unable to see the controlling apparatus that is all-present in many aspects of your daily life (marketing-advertising to name but one) then they have been, at least for you, successful.
    BTW.. This isn't conspiracy theory. This is fact. Take a university course in marketing, history, political science and you'll understand the need of population control/manipulation

    So ultimately, I feel it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to believe that the possibility of fluoride in the water supply might be just another form of population control.

    I hope that answers your question a little.

  31. Jack1952

    You have taken incidents and people of history (Roman gladiators and Joseph Goebbels etc.) and have applied this to what you see today. Is Pepsi trying to sell me a soft drink or distracting me away from political dissent? If I do buy that soft drink will that somehow take the place of any interest in what my government is doing? There are multiple reasons for marketing but the major one is to sell a product. Its that simple.

    The owners of my local professional baseball team could care less whether I have a political conscience of not. They have a product that they must sell to make a profit. It is a business, just like the one that the small Joe the Plumber types operate all over the country. No profit, no business. Marketing your business, whether a large corporation or a small Mom and Pop store, is important in maintaining the viability of that business.

    I do know soccer moms and Joe the plumber types who smoke pot all the time. Your argument does not stand up. If only a certain percentage smoke pot and the rest do not, that percentage that do would still be distracted. Not everyone likes sports. Your pot argument could be used in the same way. Since only certain people like sports, it would be ineffective as a comprehensive control mechanism. That is your pot argument applied to sports.

    You have not provided any data, evidence or link which shows that fluoride has enough of a mood altering effect to render the population passive enough to control. It is pure speculation without any hard facts that could lend any credibility to the claim that fluoride in the drinking water is part of some insidious plot by a malevolent force.

    I go weeks without watching any television or sports so to claim that I have been successfully manipulated has little or no foundation. It is a feeble and unfair attempt at discrediting anything I have to say. My disagreeing with your position is not automatically the proof you need to demonstrate that I have been brainwashed.

  32. Geoffrey Grekin

    @ Jack1952

    I feel that you took my examples too literally. Sports, advertising are just some examples of these forms of population control. For example,
    Pepsi wants to sell its product it needs to use seductive methods to entice the consumers; they often do this by direct or indirect manipulation and use psychological and symbolic methods to achieve their goals.. which you guessed correctly it is all for money!
    In addition, you need not be isolated to TV or sports to be influenced by Advertisement; simple things like word of mouth, reviews, banners, stickers, logos all subconsciously manipulate you to buying a certain brand or product.

    However, these types methods and techniques are not isolated to advertising, but also governments, news, special interest groups, corporations. politics.. Etc
    Furthermore, there are other myriads of population control not isolated to merely advertising.

    Finally, I recall saying this was a theoretical argument based on mere speculation. I haven't hidden this intention from you.

  33. Jack1952

    I guess I get dragged into discussions with individuals who make outrageous claims too often. You may have said that this was theory based on speculation but you also stated "If you are unable to see the controlling apparatus that is all-present in many aspects of your daily life (marketing-advertising to name but one) then they have been, at least for you, successful." This does sound as if you had taken a position and have gone past the theory stage.

    The attempt to use different techniques to influence the thoughts and desires of others is a many layered topic. In a discussion, I may use different tactics to sway your opinions my way. I could use logic, manipulate the truth, outright lie, use a condescending tone, mock you or your mental abilities or appeal to your vanity. No matter what method I use you could accuse me of being manipulative and to a certain extent you would be right. Human interaction, whether on a personal scale or a macro scale, is filled with attempts at unethical coercion. It is in the very nature of how we all live with one another.

    This video uses the fear that we all have about unseen dangers and then uses a logic that is difficult to refute to support that fear. Unfortunately, that logic does not include the use of any facts. It is of a "what if" nature, but when you argue against it and ask for those facts, you will be accused of being a stooge of the powers that be or maybe somewhat brainwashed into believing anything they tell you. If someone wants me to believe that fluoride is being placed into our drinking water in an attempt to lull the population into passivity you will have to offer up more than the question "Why else would they do it?" Accusations and allegations should always come with the proof to back it up. If it can't, its only talk and completely meaningless.

    Sorry if I took your examples too literally.

  34. casper26

    Quote of the day: If you don't have honesty, you don't have science.
    That is all.
    Got anything to say to that all you 'academics'???

  35. fongy74

    It's a known scientific fact that fluoride and the fluoridation of water is detrimental to a humans health and has been for a long time.It's an atrocity to see certain governments sticking by their fluoridation programmes to the point that it almost looks like an agenda to cause harm to their populations. There's plenty of conspiracy theories on world depopulation and the refusal by governments and their scientists (if that's what you can call them) to abolish water fluoridation gives the theories credence.
    Like those being interviewed in the documentary say they have caused that much harm to people already with this practice that admitting they were wrong to fluoridate the water would open a floodgate of claims it would be the biggest mass suing in history.Just admitting they were wrong and getting it right from now on whilst at the same time making it clear that there are going to be no claims able to be brought would be better than them just digging their heels in and saying their right, OK no ones going to get a penny for damages but the future of our children may be a little safer for having uncontaminated water to drink.There has been that much harm done to people through fluoridation of water that suing for damages would just be impractical and would cause those who make the decisions on such matters to put their heads in the sand and ignore that what really matters and that is water fluoridation is unsafe and the practice should be abolished immediately.

  36. phelanrocks

    It is truly time for people of all ages to protest the fluoridation of our water.
    Industry has been dumping this toxic substance into the public water supply for too too long. They are poisoning us. Stop this madness now.

  37. Ambee Applebee

    Obviously, most people are not buying this sad presentation of propaganda.

  38. dmxi

    i'm not sure if it's standard procedure worldwide but what caught my attention was how fluoride is won by manufacturing aluminum as a toxic by-product(aussie doc) & put to use in natural,healthy drinking water surplus!how can
    artificial additives be more beneficial in a natural supplement than the pure
    liquid itself?tooth decay,on national basis?

  39. mishap

    I grew up in the first town in Michigan to use fluoride. I am in so much pain from Arthritis I can't stand or sit for long periods. Since I was small I have broken my arms 9 time, my back twice, my foot 3 times and thats not counting broken toes. The doctors say, inside my bones are porous, like a honey comb. I believe I'm one of the children that was hurt by fluoride in the water. PLEASE MR.PRESIDENT TAKE IT OUT TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN OF THE FUTURE.

  40. Brittney Iturrey

    While I like this documentary for how clear and concise the speaker is in relating the dangers of fluridated water supplies, I would like to offer criticism. I'm 18:30 in and still have no idea who the speaker is or what his sources are besides the one statistic from the CDC, which contained no link or the name of the study. I generally agree with what he says because I have heard it elsewhere, but without the proof supporting him being introduced as he speaks (or before he speaks) many viewers shall remain skeptical, as we all should in an era where many say things (and quite well) which are unsure and sometimes entirely untrue.

  41. Heloise O'Byrne

    chlorine will evaporate from water if allowed to stand. do you not think that drinking water, the most essential of amenities {above cleaning, roads, fire brigades, health care and second only to oxygen} should be provided to the citizens of a country? if the water if only for washing then we should be adding soap and not flouride! its a ridiculous

  42. mike davis

    I work in a water treatment plant in Canada, and the fluoride room is so corroded just from the air inside the room which holds two big tanks and two small metering pumps, it is the ONLY chemical room in the Plant that you can not see through the glass of the door because it is so etched. So imagine what it is doing to your body over time. "dilution is the solution to pollution" according to crooked ass people that sell hydrofluorosilicic acid in order to put it in drinking water forcing people to drink it. All of the operators at the plant are against it, not for it so that should tell you something. I cant wait for the day when we don't put it in our water for our children to drink. Please people wake up and research it! If your city is trying to get rid of it let them! Its NOT to save money and will NOT harm you health!!!!!

  43. Mattsix

    I agree somewhat but providing sources isn't the issue here. It's people watching one video and/or news source and then believing that. Do your own research while gathering data and information from multiple sources to find the truth. One can't just watch this documentary and say "well, there's no sources so I have to discredit this completely." It's not hard at all to find sources backing up all of the information being said.

  44. Steve

    LOL, actually you'll be brain dead, and won't even notice you have damaged teeth.

  45. Steve

    Actually "they" are not against people smoking pot; that creates enormous economic gain for lawyers and big budgets for prisons and law enforcement. But they are absolutely dead set against people having access to the cannabis plant due to its incredible healing properties, especially as an essential oil. Generally, smoking anything is not healthful, but compared to commercial tobacco products that are laced with approximately 4,000 toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, arsenic, etc., "pot" is not so bad.

Leave a comment / review: