Fluoride Archives

Fluoridation: Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.

Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 753
Andover, Massachusetts 0 1 8 10-3347
Tele. (978) 475-9196
FAX (978) 749-9447

June 17, 1999
Dr. Irwin Kash
School Health Advisory Committee
1555 Matthew Drive
Fort Myers, Florida 33907
Re: Lee County School Board's request for information on drinking water fluoridation

Dear Dr. Kash:

The Lee County School Board and its Health Advisory Committee arc to be commended
for investigating the effects of fluoride ingestion. When the subject is controversial, as is
fluoride or fluoridation, status quo may be easier but it is not scientific. Your decision to
analyze data on both sides of the issue is a great example to set for the students. The
following information describes my enlightenment of the subject, and it is offered in the
hope it will aid your understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of water
fluoridation.

Prior to 1982, my knowledge of fluoride was limited to television commercials saying it
was good for my teeth. My expertise was not fluoride but the detection of neurotoxicity,
which brought me to the Department of Psychiatry at Boston's Children's Hospital and
Neuropathology at the Harvard Medical School. It was there that I met Dr. Jack Hein,
Director of the Forsyth Dental Center and the scientist responsible for putting
monofluorophosphate (MFP) into toothpaste. Dr. Hein was a student of Dr. Harold Hodge,
the chief pharmacologist on the Manhattan Project who conducted the world renowned
studies on fluoride (1) and started water fluoridation. Dr. Hein invited me to Forsyth to
study the neurotoxic potential of materials that dentists use, starting with fluoride, and we
set up the first toxicology department in any dental research institution in the world. I was
made Head of the department, and Dr. Hodge moved to Boston and became a member of my
department where he stayed until his death in 1990. Another Manhattan Project scientist and
fluoride researcher, Dr. Ben Amdur, also joined the department.

My investigations of the neurotoxicity of fluoride started in 1987. Using a new computer
pattern recognition system capable of a sensitivity and objectivity other behavioral measures
did not possess, we studied an animal model first developed for the study of dental
fluorosis. Frankly, we expected to find nothing. The results from the first experiment we
thought must be wrong, so we kept repeating the study with more animals, different doses,
sexes, ages and methods of administration. Like quicksand, every effort we made sank us
further into the realization that brain function was impacted by fluoride. Scientific integrity
dictated that we publish our results (2,3), but employed at a dental research institution made
us weak in the knees to do so.

In our 1995 paper (2), we reported that brain function was vulnerable to fluoride, that
the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in
brain tissues. Rats exposed as adults displayed behavior-specific changes typical of
cognitive deficits, whereas rats exposed prenatally had dispersed behaviors typical of

page 2 (Mullenix letter to Lee County School Board Health Advisory Committee)

hyperactivity. Brain histology was not examined, but the behavioral changes were
consistent with those seen when hippocampal development is interrupted and memory
problems emerge. Overall, we concluded that the rat study nagged potential for motor
dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in

Re: Fluoridation: Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D. (Archive.)