Fluoride has been used in the past to reduce hyper-thyroid conditions. Likewise, fluoride will reduce fluoride activity of a person who otherwise would have normal thyroid activity.
For more information, read this:
http://fluoride-class-action.com/the-effects-of-fluoride-on-the-thyroid
http://www.alternet.org/story/155375/how_corporations_like_monsanto_have_hijacked_higher_education
Here’s what happens when corporations begin to control education.
“When I approached professors to discuss research projects addressing organic agriculture in farmer’s markets, the first one told me that ‘no one cares about people selling food in parking lots on the other side of the train tracks,’” said a PhD student at a large land-grant university who did not wish to be identified. “My academic adviser told me my best bet was to write a grant for Monsanto or the Department of Homeland Security to fund my research on why farmer’s markets were stocked with ‘black market vegetables’ that ‘are a bioterrorism threat waiting to happen.’ It was communicated to me on more than one occasion throughout my education that I should just study something Monsanto would fund rather than ideas to which I was deeply committed. I ended up studying what I wanted, but received no financial support, and paid for my education out of pocket.”
Unfortunately, she’s not alone. Conducting research requires funding, and today’s research follows the golden rule: The one with the gold makes the rules.
A report just released by Food and Water Watch examines the role of corporate funding of agricultural research at land grant universities, of which there are more than 100. “You hear again and again Congress and regulators clamoring for science-based rules, policies, regulations,” says Food and Water Watch researcher Tim
Schwab, explaining why he began investigating corporate influence in agricultural research. “So if the rules and regulations and policies are based on science that is industry-biased, then the fallout goes beyond academic articles. It really trickles down to farmer livelihoods and consumer choice.”
The report found that nearly one quarter of research funding at land grant universities now comes from corporations, compared to less than 15 percent from the USDA. Although corporate funding of research surpassed USDA funding at these universities in the mid-1990s, the gap is now larger than ever. What’s more, a broader look at all corporate agricultural research, $7.4 billion in 2006, dwarfs the mere $5.7 billion in all public funding of agricultural research spent the same year.
Influence does not end with research funding, however. In 2005, nearly one third of agricultural scientists reported consulting for private industry. Corporations endow professorships and donate money to universities in return for having buildings, labs and wings named for them. Purdue University’s Department of Nutrition Science blatantly offers corporate affiliates “corporate visibility with students and faculty” and “commitment by faculty and administration to address [corporate] members’ needs,” in return for the $6,000 each corporate affiliate pays annually.
In perhaps the most egregious cases, corporate boards and college leadership overlap. In 2009, South Dakota State’s president, for example, joined the board of directors of Monsanto, where he earns six figures each year. Bruce Rastetter is simultaneously the co-founder and managing director of a company called AgriSol Energy and a member of the Iowa Board of Regents. Under his influence, Iowa State joined AgriSol in a venture in Tanzania that would have forcefully removed 162,000 people from their land, but the university later pulled out of the project after public outcry.
What is the impact of the flood of corporate cash? “We know from a number of meta-analyses, that corporate funding leads to results that are favorable to the corporate funder,” says Schwab. For example, one peer-reviewed study found that corporate-funded nutrition research on soft drinks, juice and milk were four to eight times more likely to reach conclusions in line with the sponsors’ interests. And when a scrupulous scientist publishes research that is unfavorable to the study’s funder, he or she should be prepared to look for a new source of funding.
That’s what happened to a team of researchers at University of Illinois who were funded by a statewide fertilizer “checkoff” after they published a finding that nitrogen fertilizer depletes organic matter in the soil. Checkoffs are a common method used to market agricultural products, and they are funded by a small amount from each sale of a product – in this case, fertilizer. Richard Mulvaney, one of the U of I researchers, feels it is twisted that, in this way, farmers fund research intended to promote fertilizer use with their own fertilizer purchases.
But often the industry influence may be more subtle. Joyce Lok, a graduate student at Iowa State University, said, “If a corporation funds your research, they want you to look at certain research questions that they want answered. So if that happens it’s not like you can explore other things they don’t want you to look at… I think they direct the research in that way.”
John Henry Wells, who spent several decades as a student, professor and administrator at land grant universities sees it a different way. As an academic, he hopes that his research is relevant to real world problems that agriculture faces at the time. “When you ask the question, did I ever outline a research plan with the explicit notion of is this going to be fundable, I would say no. But I thought very deeply about whether my research plan was going to be relevant, and one of the indicators of relevancy would be if the ideas I put forward would get the attention of trade associations, private industry, benefactors, etc.”
If scientists use fundability as an important criteria of selecting research topics, research intended to serve the needs of the poor and the powerless will be at a disadvantage. However, Wells says that this is hardly a new phenomenon: land grants have existed to serve the elites since their creation in the 19th century.
“As its basis, the land-grant university was intended to cater to a narrow political interest of landowners and homesteaders – individuals who had the right to vote and participate in the political structure of a representative democracy.” he says. “Contemporarily, it is not so much that the land-grant university has been corrupted by modern agro-industrial influence, as it has been historically successful in focusing on its mission in the context of our Constitutional framework of governance. For the land-grant university, its greatest strength – a political collaboration spanning the top-to-bottom echelons of influence – has been its greatest weakness.”
Land grant universities and the USDA itself first came into being at a time when the academic view of agriculture was fundamentally changing – even if most farmers at the time ignored the advice of academics, dismissing them as “book farmers” who knew little about actually working the land. Will Allen writes about this period in his book The War on Bugs, telling the story of Justus von Liebig, a prominent agricultural chemist in Germany.
“In the 1830s, Liebig began asserting that the most essential plant nutrients were nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. His theories fueled the development of chemical fertilizers and ushered in a new age of agricultural science and soil chemistry in the 1840s and 1850s. Though many of Liebig’s theories were wrong, he was the first great propagandist for chemistry and for chemical-industrial agriculture.” Perhaps the most significant of his mistakes was his belief that organic matter in the soil was unimportant.
Dozens of Americans studied under Liebig and returned to the U.S. to continue their work. Two of these students established labs at Harvard and Yale, and soon “all agricultural schools and experiment stations in the country followed their lead.” Thus, practically from the start, the elites in this country served the interests of those who peddled chemical fertilizers and other agricultural inputs – even if that wasn’t their intent. No doubt many were enticed by the prospect of founding a new, modern, scientific form of agriculture, as they felt they were doing.
The unholy trinity of industry, government and academics promoting industrial agriculture and de-emphasizing or dismissing sustainable methods has a long history and it continues today. In its report, Food and Water Watch advocates a return to robust federal funding of research at land grant universities. But government is hardly immune from serving the corporate agenda either.
Take, for example, Roger Beachy, the former head of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the agency in the USDA that doles out research grants. Beachy spent much of his career as an academic, collaborating with Monsanto to produce the world’s first genetically engineered tomato. He later became the founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Monsanto’s non-profit arm, before President Obama appointed him to lead NIFA.
As Schwab noted, policy is often based on research, but good policy requires a basis in unbiased, objective research. In a system in which corporations and government both fund research, but due to the revolving door, the same people switch between positions within industry, lobbying for industry, and within government, what is the solution?
Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It..
Request for Truthfulness and Full Disclosure in Annual Charlottesville Water Quality Reports
Submitted to Charlottesville City Council
Kenneth Case
May 16, 2012
Issues:
1. Current data from the CDC does not support the statement “Fluoride is a water additive which promotes strong teeth.”(1) The statement should read: “Fluoride ingested during tooth development can result in a range of visually detectable changes in enamel opacity because of hypomineralization. These changes have been broadly termed enamel fluorosis, certain extremes of which are cosmetically objectionable.”(2)
2. The true statement “Fluoridated water should not be used to reconstitute powdered infant formula.” should be included in the Water Quality Report.(3) The statement should also be included with utility bills. (See* on next page)
3. The CDC reports that in the last survey of US children aged 12-15, 40.7% had dental fluorosis. 3.6% had moderate and severe dental fluorosis, up from 22.6% and 1.3% in the previous survey.(4) Blacks are disproportionately affected by fluorosis. Studies show Black children have twice the fluorosis as white children. Fluorosis in Blacks tends to be more severe compared to whites.(5) Parents and caregivers should be advised to carefully monitor fluoride intake.
4. Individuals consuming abnormally large quantities of water need to be informed to drink bottled water. These include people with kidney problems, diabetics, athletes, outdoor workers and military personnel.(6)
5. A 14 year investigation into the effects of fluoride ingestion determined that one percent of the group reacted adversely to the fluoride. The reactions affected the dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological systems. Eczema, atopic dermatitis, urticaria, epigastric distress, emesis and headache occurred with the use of fluoride.(7) People exposed to water fluoridation need to be informed that in studies, 1% experienced adverse reactions.
6. Ethics require advising the public about any warnings of possible harm, especially when in the Special Precautions section the MSDS that accompanies delivery. Environmental concerns also need to be observed and addressed.(8)
7. Higher blood lead levels have been reported in children living in communities that receive fluoride-treated water.(9) Cities have reported reduced lead levels in water when fluoridation stopped.(10) Cognitive impairment is a serious issue and due consideration should be given to the multiple warnings about increases in lead levels.
8. Information in neurotoxicologist Phyllis Mullenix’s letter to the School Health Advisory Committee in Lee County, Florida should be passed on to people of child bearing age so that they can make informed decisions should an uninformed doctor, dentist or pediatrician describe systemic fluoride as safe and effective for their children.(11)
9. In 1980 the Virginia Department of Health asked toxicologist Brian Dementi to review the available literature relating to the health effects of fluoride. In the conclusion of his 41 page report he said “With regard to fluoridation, this writer is of the opinion that the evidence of adverse health effects is of such magnitude and human beings so varied in their individual constitution, state of health at any moment, eating and drinking habits, etc., that it is inappropriate to say that fluoridation is a totally healthful and safe practice for all. Widespread exposure to fluoride coupled with an inadequate data base substantiating it to be safe is a cause of great concern.”(12)
10. Owners of horses should be informed that studies have shown that horses drinking fluoridated water for long periods of time developed signs of fluoride intoxication, e.g. dental fluorosis, crooked legs, hoof deformities, allergic reactions etc. In addition to horses, a variety of other animals have shown signs of fluoride toxicity.(13)
11. The foregoing statements need to be taken seriously. If health issues alone aren’t enough to give one pause, understand that a Complaint for Damages has been filed that states: “Defendants know or should have known that their products, when taken as intended, cause and contribute to an increased risk of persistent and/or permanent serious and dangerous side effects including, without limitation, cognitive impairment and dental fluorosis.”(14)
12. The statement “Fluoride is added at the water treatment plant for the benefit of industry.” is a true statement that should be included in the Water Quality Report under Typical Source of Contamination. Documentation here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89672052/Fluoridation-History-From-Tampa-Bay-to-Our-Bodies
*Infant fluoride intake when powdered formula is reconstituted with fluoridated water = up to 1.57 mg/day in a 3
month old.(Levy) Tolerable Upper Intake = 0.7 mg/day meaning a dose of more than double the limit.(CDC) As stated earlier, 3.6% of surveyed US children aged 12-15 had moderate and severe dental fluorosis.(CDC) Severe dental fluorosis occurs when developing teeth are exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride. There is a disparity between Blacks and whites with Blacks having twice the fluorosis that tends to be more severe.(NRC) Repair is difficult and costly.(JCDA, BMJ) Plus, the relatively acid environment of the stomach ensures that more than 90% of ingested fluoride will be in the form of hydrogen fluoride.(Ekstrand) Hydrogen fluoride damages cells and causes them to not work properly.(CDC, JADA) Hydrogen fluoride has been listed as a special health hazard by the State of New Jersey.(Univar MSDS) Hydrogen fluoride is so corrosive to tissues that Dreisbach’s Handbook of Poisoning: Prevention, Diagnosis & Treatment says that if it has penetrated under the fingernails, consider removing the nails using local anesthesia. Link to all references.(15)
Allowing a 3 month old infant to ingest 1.57mg of a topically reactive fluoride dental agent is neither safe nor effective.
References
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4841.pdf MMWR, Oct. 22, 1999: Earlier beliefs of systemic action wrong.
(2) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5014.pdf MMWR, Aug. 17, 2001: Action topical, Ductal saliva ineffective.
(3) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/infant/ Published warnings about using fluoridated water with powdered formula.
(4) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm CDC Data Brief, Nov. 2010. Fluorosis = 40.7% total, 3.6% mod/severe.
(5) http://www.scribd.com/doc/89531282/Health-Effects-of-Ingested-Fluoride-Dental-Skeletal-Fluorosis
Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (NRC): Dubious genesis of dose, scientific base weak, fluorosis seen at only 0.4 mg/L.
80.9% fluorosis, 14% moderate-to-severe in Augusta, GA. Blacks vs. whites fluorosis rates. Symptoms of skeletal fluorosis.
Also, World Health Organization (WHO) says skeletal fluorosis may be misdiagnosed as rheumatoid or osteoarthritis.
(6) http://www.scribd.com/doc/89465813/NIH-Water-Warning Warnings to diabetics, consumers of large amounts of water.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=30 2006 NRC discussion of concerns about high water intake.
Feltman, DDS, Dental Digest 1956; 62: 353-357: Progress Report: 1% of people had adverse reaction to fluoride.
States that avoiding undesirable reactions to fluoride is more problematic and complicated when water is fluoridated.
Feltman and Kosel, Journal of Dental Medicine 1961; 16: 190-99: Fourteen years of investigation—Final report.
(8) http://www.scribd.com/doc/93113542/MSDS-Warnings Material Safety Data Sheet showing Special Precautions comments
that were not passed on to consumers. Univar MSDS with Hydrogen Fluoride and specific Environmental Warnings.
(9) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188782 Fluoride increases lead levels in blood: Toxicology, 2010 Apr 30.
(10) http://www.scribd.com/doc/90123804/Thurmont-Tacoma-Lead When fluoridation was stopped, lead levels dropped.
(11) http://www.scribd.com/doc/17168581/Mullenix-School-Board-Letter Fluoridation and neurotoxicity found to be linked.
(12) http://www.scribd.com/doc/16925697/Dementi-Fluoride-Report Virginia Department of Health Toxicology Report.
(13) http://www.scribd.com/doc/89468991/Fluoride-Poisoning-in-Horses-Links Links to documents showing harm to animals.
(14) http://www.nidellaw.com/blog/?p=66 Legal Complaint for Damages filed for “cognitive impairment and dental fluorosis.”
(15) http://www.scribd.com/doc/93810959/Infant-Formula-References Documentation of fluoridated water danger to infants.
FYI
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90830396 R. Foulkes, MD. Why he changed mind. Evaluates Kingston/Newburgh. Proceedings 1951.
http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation. Wm. Hirzy, Ph.D.
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/ Fluoride News Tracker Blog covers escalating dental woes in fluoridated communities.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hensley.pdf State Rep. Hensley, MD, recommends that Tennessee water systems stop fluoridating.
http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.html Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation. (See revealing graph at end)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90638965/Kennedy David Kennedy, DDS, explains to California officials why fluoridation is harmful.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90207300/Wm-Marcus-PhD EPA Toxicologist told to quit submitting fluoride toxicity information.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/arkansas.2-19-09.letter.pdf Legal recourse when officials give misleading and incomplete statements.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89602513/G-Heard-DDS-1953 Texas dentist identified fluoridation problems at the very beginning.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93812938/Fluoridation-Failures Fluoride promoters’ promises unmet, dental crises in major US cities.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88687940/Osmunson-BMJ-Letter Cosmetic Dentist explains lifetime costs of repairing fluorosis.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/top-10-reasons-against-fluoride.aspx Chemist Dr. Paul Connett argues against water fluoridation.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17172739/Dr-Hardy-Limeback-Statement Prominent dental researcher outlines his arguments.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16887647/Fluoridation-and-Cancer-John-Lee-MD Fluoride an “enabler” in the cancer process.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89603161/Informed-Side-Wins-Fluoride-Debate-at-U-of-Pittsburgh Informed dental students win.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46980434/Fluoridation-A-Clinician-s-Experience-Waldbott-SMJ-1980 Case studies of fluoride toxicity.
More at: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/ http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-dangers/health/index.aspx
Dear Everett Officials,
I strongly recommend you read the attached “Request for Truthfulness” that is opening eyes here in Virginia.
Please be prepared to refute or accept its contents.
Please formulate a response to the concept of the responsibility of the Duty to Warn regarding the use of fluoridated water to reconstitute powdered infant formula. Please read the following:
Vermont Department of Health Formula Advisory:
http://healthvermont.gov/family/dental/fluoride/formula.aspx
New Hampshire Fluoridated Water Warning:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1416.html
Please explain where the 20-40% reduction of tooth decay is in these fluoridated US cities.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93812938/Fluoridation-Failures-2012
Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780
Thank you,
Kenneth Case Stauton, Virginia
CDC:
GUIDELINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF LEAD EXPOSURE IN PREGNANT AND LACTATING WOMEN
Because there is no apparent threshold below which adverse effects of lead do not occur, CDC has not identified an allowable exposure level, level of concern, or any other bright line intended to connote a safe or unsafe level of exposure for either mother or fetus.
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/LeadandPregnancy2010.pdf?source=govdelivery
Click on this link to see the Google collection of fluorosis images.
F A C T S H E E T
“America’s Secret Chernobyl”
Uranium Mining and Nuclear Pollution in the Northern Great Plains
1. World War II ended with the nuclear bomb and introduced the use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity which caused the price of uranium to rise. Uranium mining in South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota began in the middle of the 1960s. As the economy of the Northern Great Plains states depends primarily on agriculture, when uranium was discovered in the region, many get-rich-quick schemes were adopted. Not only were large mining companies pushing off the tops of bluffs and buttes, but small individual ranchers were also digging in their pastures for the radioactive metal. Mining occurred on both public and private land, although the Great Sioux Nation still maintains a claim to the area through the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868, the March 3rd Act of 1871, Article VI of the US Constitution, and the 1980 Supreme Court decision on the Black Hills. The Great Sioux Nation was never consulted on any of this.
2. In northwestern South Dakota, the Cave Hills area is managed by the US Forest Service. The area currently contains 104 abandoned open-pit uranium mines. Studies by the USFS show that one mine alone has 1,400 milliRhems per hour (mR/hr) of exposed radiation, a level of radiation that is 120,000 times higher than normal background of 100 milliRhems per year (mR/yr)! A private abandoned, open-pit uranium mine about 200 meters from an elementary school in Ludlow, SD, emits 1170 microRems per hour, more than 4 times as much as being emitted from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. This is only one abandoned, open-pit uranium mine in the middle of the United States.
3. Through research by an independent researcher, more than 3,000 open-pit uranium mines and prospects can be found in the four state region. A map from the US Forest Service shows the mines and prospects but not how many. The water runoff from the creeks and rivers near these abandoned uranium mines eventually empty into the Missouri River which empties into the Mississippi River. Research shows uranium is being carried down the Missouri River to the southern, South Dakota border. The costs for research outside of this Region has prohibited going outside the Region.
4. The following agencies are aware of these abandoned uranium mines and prospects: US Forest Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Bureau of Land Management, SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the US Indian Health Service. Only after public concern about these mines was raised a few years ago did the USFS and the EPA pay for a study in 2006 of the off site effects from only one mine, but not from the combined effects of all the mines. An effort to clean up that one mine was stopped when the mining company declared bankruptcy. Runoff and dust continue to pour from that mine.
5. More than 4,000 exploratory holes, some large enough for a man to fall into, are found in the southwestern Black Hills with an additional 3,000 holes just 10 miles west of the town of Belle Fourche, SD. These holes go to depths of 600 feet. This exploratory process itself has already contaminated the Regions aquifers with radioactive pollutants. Hundreds of more exploratory holes for uranium are being bored in Wyoming and South Dakota with those states’ approval.
6. The US Air Force also used small nuclear power plants in some of their hundreds of remote radar stations and missile silos. No data is available on the current status or disposal of these small nuclear power sources or of their wastes. As the US Air Force is responsible for monitoring these sites, although there is no stopping the radioactive pollution that could contaminate aquifers, this responsibility assists in continuing the funding for Ellsworth Air Force Base, a political convenience.
7. In Wyoming, hundreds of abandoned open-pit uranium mines and prospects can be found in or near the coal in the Powder River Basin. Both Wyoming and North Dakota coal is laced with uranium and its decay products. The coal is shipped to power plants in the Eastern and Western parts of the United States. Radioactive dust and particles are released into the air at the coal fired power plants on the East and West Coasts and often set off the warning systems at nuclear power plants. The same radioactive dust and particles are released into the air that travels across South Dakota and to the South and East in the coal strip mining process by itself.
8. The people in the Northern Great Plains Region have the highest rate of lung cancer in the country according to studies by the Indian Health Service. Although the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization were requested to come study the cancer rates in this Region, both agencies have never completed any studies. The CDC said there were not enough people in SD to warrant a study, since SD has less than 1 million people. South Dakota also contains the last majority of people of the Great Sioux Nation.
Conclusion
This Fact Sheet regarding past and planned uranium and coal mining in the Northern Great Plains region should give cause for alarm to all thinking people in the United States. This is the area that has been called “the Bread Basket of the World.” For more than forty years, the people of Northern Great Plains and beyond have been subjected to radioactive pollution in the air and water from the hundreds of abandoned open pit uranium mines, processing sites, underground nuclear power stations, and waste dumps.
There needs to be a concerted effort to determine the extent of the radioactive pollution in the environment, and the health damage that has been and is currently being inflicted upon the people of the United States and the world.
It is imperative that a federal bill be passed in Congress appropriating enough funds for the cleanup of ALL the abandoned uranium mines in this four State region. This harmful situation must not be placed on the end of the Superfund list of hazardous sites to be addressed in twenty years. Those responsible for this disaster must be held responsible for the consequences, but the cleanup and health concerns need to be addressed first.
The cleanup of all of these abandoned, open-pit mines must begin NOW!
********* What you can do ***********
1. Contact the President of the United States, Congressional Representatives and Senators by phone (202) 224-3121, through the mail, and email. Ask that they pass a bill for the cleanup of all the abandoned uranium mines and prospects, and underground nuclear sites in the Northern Great Plains Region of South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming as these abandoned mines are affecting the water, air, and food for the entire world.
2. Encourage the use of alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar. Nuclear energy is not the answer and only creates very long term problems for the whole world.
Thank you!
Compiled by Defenders of the Black Hills, PO Box 2003, Rapid City, SD 57709,
A 501(c)3. non-profit corporation.
For more information check out www.defendblackhills.org
JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesRobertDeal.com
May 13, 2012
The Herald Letters to the Editor P.O. Box 930
On February 9 of this year, Everett Utilities turned the fluoride off to repair pipes in the fluoridation building. The pipes were leaking hydrogen fluoride. Safe water groups urged the City Council not to restart fluoridation and to hold hearings. (The Herald, “Fluoridated Water Supply: Utility should have to prove its safety”, March 24.)
Fluoride defenders published a reply, saying that fluoridation is “safe and effective”. (The Herald, “Fluoridated Water a safe, low-cost public health tool”, April 5). On April 10, Everett Utilities turned the fluoride back on.
We disagree with the fluoride defenders, and we have released a reply. Fluoridation is neither safe nor effective. See www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/press-releases.
The type of fluoride used is industrial grade. It contains lead, arsenic, and many other contaminants. It leaches lead from plumbing. It causes ugly and embarrassing dental fluorosis to around 12% of children age 12-15, around 4,500 children in the 700,000 person Everett Water District. Harm is especially great to fetuses, infants, diabetics (who consume more water), and those with kidney and thyroid disease. And there is strong evidence that drinking fluoride does little or nothing to reduce dental decay.
The Everett City Council has taken an important step. Led by Council President Ron Gipson, the Council has decided to put this issue on the agenda and hold a hearing at the Council meeting on June 6 at 6:30.
Please study the information on our web site, write or call your favorite Council members, and attend the June 6 meeting.
Sincerely,
James Robert Deal, Attorney
PALISADE, Colo.- Palisade has stopped adding fluoride to its drinking water supply.
After running out of the chemical material back in March, the city had to make a decision.
Frank Watt, public works director, said, “We asked the question, are we achieving our purpose of providing the safest drinking water possible? The addition of fluoride did not help us achieve that goal.”
Other cities, including Grand Junction, have already eliminated fluoride.
“The addition of fluoride doesn’t make the water safer … does not improve the quality of water. It has known health benefits, but it also has known hazards,” Watt said.
Watt told NewsChannel 5, “It is highly acidic. It can burn your skin, burn your eyes. There were safety concerns for our operators at the water plant, as well as the public.”
Still, there’s no way to eliminate fluoride completely. Watt said, “There is naturally occurring fluoride in our water. It’s not like there will be no fluoride at all … it’s just that we won’t be supplementing it at all to get to a higher level, that say, the state health department would like to see us achieve.”
Officials say if you are worried about reduced fluoride levels in the drinking water, there are products such as mouthwash and toothpaste to supplement that loss.
Thanks to KREX TV.
JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesRobertDeal.com
QUESTIONS FOR DR. GOLDBAUM
May 9, 2012
Dr. Gary Goldbaum
Snohomish Health District
3020 Rucker Street, Suite 306
Everett, WA 98201-3971
Also sent by fax to 425-339-5263
Also sent by email to: ggoldbaum@snohd.org
Dear Dr. Goldbaum,
On February 9 of this year, Everett Utilities turned the fluoride off to repair pipes in the fluoridation building. The pipes were leaking hydrogen fluoride. Safe water groups urged the City Council not to restart fluoridation without first holding hearings. (The Herald, “Fluoridated Water Supply: Utility should have to prove its safety”, March 24.)
Writing with Dr. Stephen J. Lee, DDS, you responded that fluoridation is “safe and effective”. You announced that fluoridation would soon resume, and reassured the public that the two month interruption in fluoridation would not deprive them of the “benefits of fluoridation”. The tenor of your article would imply that you oppose holding hearings. (The Herald, “Fluoridated Water a safe, low-cost public health tool”, April 5).
On April 10, Everett Utilities turned the fluoride back on. At the City Council meeting on April 11, Council President Gipson explained why the Council did not act to prevent fluoridation from restarting: There were referendums on fluoridation in 1990 and 1992, with fluoridation winning by 51% and 62%. “The voters have spoken. They elected us. They are the boss. We listen to them”.
Councilman Drew Nielsen takes the position that this is a complex scientific issue, that the Council is not a “science court”, and therefore that the Council must rely on recognized scientific authorities such as the CDC, EPA, and you.
With all due respect, we take issue with your position. Because the City Council is relying on you for scientific advice, I am addressing this letter to you and asking for a written response.
In your April 5 article you cite no scientific evidence to support your “safe and effective” assurances – except for your assertion that fluoride is naturally occurring. While it is true that fluoride is naturally occurring, so too are lead and arsenic. Being naturally occurring does not make something safe to add to our water and consume, especially when people drink different amounts of water and have different pre-existent conditions. In your response, please address this issue.
When you say that fluoride is naturally occurring, you imply that the fluoride added to Everett water is the naturally occurring type. It is not. Naturally occurring fluoride is generally calcium fluoride (CaF2), which is not even classified as a poison. It would take a half pound of calcium fluoride to kill an adult but just seven paperclips weight of fluorosilicic acid.
The fluoridation materials Everett uses is a brew of dozens of elements and compounds, including around 23% industrial grade fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and 0.5% hydrogen fluoride (HF). It also contains dangerous levels of lead, arsenic, and other toxic substances.
Fluoridation started in 1945 with sodium fluoride, which is just as poisonous as fluorosilicic acid but contains less impurities. Around 92% of fluoridation is now done with the cheaper fluorosilicic acid. Phosphate fertilizer companies have a lot to sell – or pay to dispose of. By some estimates fluoridation has a $500 million impact on the fertilizer and chemical business.
It is a consistent error on the part of pro-fluoridationists that they lump all forms of fluoride together. The different fluorides behave differently. For example, fluorosilicic acid both contains lead and has a special ability to leach lead out of pipes. This is important because Everett pipes like Seattle pipes – private and public – contain a LOT of lead.
It is impossible to remove all lead pipes in Everett at any reasonable cost or within any reasonable time frame. But it is easy to reduce lead levels, and that is to stop adding fluorosilicic acid to our water. Where fluoridation stops, blood lead levels drop. It is odd that we go to such great lengths to reduce exposure to lead from old paint, while we are blind to the lead that we ingest as a result of fluoridating our water.
In your April 5 article, you did not respond to the evidence we presented that the industrial grade of fluoride used contains lead and leaches lead from pipes. Please address this issue in your response.
Your response ignores another type of fluoride, hydrogen fluoride (HF), one of the most toxic and penetrating of all compounds. No drug which contains hydrogen fluoride may be “labeled, represented, or promoted” as an “anticares drug product” without prior FDA approval. See 21 CFR 310.545. Around 2.0% of Everett’s industrial fluorosilicic acid is hydrogen fluoride, a very high level of a highly toxic compound. The use of hydrogen fluoride to prevent tooth decay is illegal.
In your article you rely on endorsements instead of scientific evidence, however, endorsements are not proof. You say that CDC and EPA endorse fluoridation, but this is only a half-truth. The EPA is divided into pro-industry and pro-consumer camps. It is the EPA administrators who support fluoridation. EPA scientists, represented by the EPA Union, strongly oppose fluoridation and do so based on science.
Likewise the CDC (an agency under HHS) is divided. One small dental health office within CDC trumpets support for fluoridation, while CDC scientists post articles on the CDC web site which admit that 40.7% of children are getting dental fluorosis and that the effect of fluoride on teeth is “primarily topical” and “not systemic”.
The FDA too is divided. Although politics prevent the FDA from banning fluoridation (FDA too is under HHS), the FDA has never approved it. Although it has not done so yet, the FDA has warned that it could prosecute criminally those who violate FDA regulations.
Like legislatures, many of our agencies have been “captured” by the industries they regulate.
Further, endorsements cut both ways. Many respected scientists oppose fluoridation, including Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in medicine, along with thousands of doctors, dentists, nurses, PhDs, and other professionals. In your response, please explain why you rely so heavily on CDC and EPA endorsements.
You cite evidence that tooth decay has declined, and then you assert that fluoridation caused the decline. But you fail to prove any cause and effect connection. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay. Tooth decay started declining before fluoridation was instituted and has continued declining both in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. The clearest proof that fluoridation is not the cause of the decline in tooth decay is the fact that decay rates have dropped just as much in non-fluoridated continental Europe as they have in the United States. When Cuba and East Germany stopped fluoridating, tooth decay declined.
The CDC website lists many studies showing 10% to 30% reductions in decay. But these studies never claim that fluoridation eliminates all decay. Fluoridation is not a “magic bullet”. *The real keys to ending decay are cutting out sugar, eating lots of mineral rich green foods, getting sunlight or vitamin D supplementation, brushing and flossing, and primary dental care. The new Affordable Care Act should cover primary dental care but does not.
For various reasons the poor have the most tooth decay and are most affected by dental fluorosis, particularly Blacks and Hispanics.
Further, neither the EPA nor the CDC has any jurisdiction to encourage, finance, or require adding fluoride to water. The Safe Drinking Water forbids them from requiring fluoridation: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”.
Neither EPA nor CDC may require fluoridation, so they only encourage it and work to convince states, cities, and water districts to require it, passing the buck down the line to local governing bodies such as the Everett City Council, in an effort to avoid violating the Safe Drinking Water Act.
In our March 24 article, we pointed out that infants and fetuses are most vulnerable to fluoridation materials, that the toxins in fluoridation materials cross the placental barrier and the blood-brain barrier, that they damage brain tissue and reduce IQ while the fetus is still in the womb. Convincing studies show lower intelligence in fluoridated areas. Please address these issues in your response.
The CDC and the ADA admit that we are giving dental fluorosis to 40.7 percent of children age 12-15. You say that “the minor changes in the tooth surface caused by fluorosis are not detectable by the average consumer or considered unsightly”, but this is not correct. Of the 40.7% affected, 8.6% of those suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some yellow and brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and 50-100% of enamel impacted). Thus, more than a quarter of fluorosis cases (8.6% + 3.6% = 12.2% / 40.7% = 30%) are ugly and difficult and costly to cover up. Cosmetic dentists say the cost for veneers can run $1,000 per tooth and replacement veneers are required The cost for veneers can run $1,000 per tooth, and over a lifetime can cost $100,000. These are not “minor changes in the tooth surface”.
You minimize the extent and significance of fluorosis. However, the number of children affected in absolute terms with mild, moderate, and severe fluorisis adds up to around 15,327 children age 12-15 living in the 700,000 person Everett service area, 3,238 with mild fluorosis, and 1,356 with moderate to severe fluorosis. See http://fluoride-class-action.com/calculations.
Mild and moderate fluorosis are ugly and embarrassing. It is not acceptable to deface the teeth of this many children just to achieve an alleged 10% to 30% reduction in dental decay. This is especially true because fluoride can be administered topically.
Giving 40.7% of our children fluorosis in return for a 10% to 30% or even a non-existent reduction in decay is a bad bargain.
Most dentists believe fluoride is effective topically, via toothpaste and concentrated gels, but many dentists have concluded that it does not work systemically and therefore should not be forced on everyone through our drinking water. Please address the topical versus systemic issue in your response.
You make the standard pro-fluoridationist argument that fluoridation “saves $38 for every dollar invested”, a reference to Griffin’s Economic Evaluation of Fluoridation, which comes to such conclusions only by starting with the false assumptions that fluoridation (1) causes no collateral damage anyone drinking fluoridated water and (2) that there is a savings of $18 per hour in wages not lost by missing work to visit a dentist. However, Fluoride does cause harm, and the calculation presumes that even children and the unemployed save $18 per hour by not missing work. In her Tale of Two Studies, Carol Clinch shows this to be a contrived estimate based on incorrect assumptions. See also http://fluoride-class-action.com/deconstructing-michael-easley.
You assert that “more than 3,000 scientific studies have proven that appropriate fluoridation strengthens teeth …”, however, you do not say where these studies can be reviewed. In your response, please point out where I may access these 3,000 studies.
Until I receive your response, I will rely on the studies which the CDC presents as most important, the cases cited in CDC’s 2011 proposal to reduce fluoride added to water to .7 ppm. See: www.fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/report-card-for-hhs. If you read these studies, you will note that they discuss only tooth decay rates and dental fluorosis and that they consistently ignore the many harmful side effects of fluoridation – as do you.
In our March 24 article we pointed out that the fluoridation materials themselves are illegal. That is because Washington law, WAC 246-290-220(3), says: “Any treatment chemicals … added to water intended for potable use must comply with ANSI/NSF Standard 60.” The NSF web site and the NSF Standard for Drinking Water Additives, say: “Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and … to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects.” However, NSF officials have admitted under oath that toxicological studies are not being done. Thus, fluoridation materials do not “comply” with NSF 60, and fluoridating the water with them is illegal. Would you please address this issue in your response?
In our March 24 article in the Herald, we suggested that hearings should be held regarding the health and effectiveness of fluoridation. Do you support or oppose hearings in which representatives from both camps may present their case on this important issue?
We pointed out that fluoridation materials are costing Everett around $300,000 per year. Everett buys a 5,200 gallon tanker load of fluorosilicic acid every three weeks and pours it into our water at the rate of 250 gallons per day. Each 5,200 gallon tanker load costs around $16,500. In your response would you please explain how you can justify such an expenditure, given the harsh cuts Everett is being forced to make in important services.
In your April 5 article you directed readers to the I Like My Teeth web site, www.ilikemyteeth.org. This web site features endorsements and smiling children but no scientific studies or other information which addresses the safety of effectiveness of fluoridation. In your response, please point out more substantial web sites.
I would also ask whether you wrote your April 5 article with the approval of the Snohomish Health District and whether your article represents the official position of the District. Please address these questions in your response.
Look under http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases for “Questions For Dr. Goldbaum” for the full version of this letter and supporting references.
Sincerely,
James Robert Deal, Attorney
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH
James Robert Deal practices law in Lynnwood Washington and is president of Fluoride Class Action. See www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com. Dr. Sauerheber holds a Ph.D. in chemistry, teaches at Palomar College in San Diego, and has published numerous peer reviewed articles in respected scientific journals. See www.fluoride-class-action.com/ask-dr-sauerheber. Dr. Osmunson is a cosmetic dentist practicing in Bellevue and Beaverton, prolific writer on public health issues, and president of Washington Action for Safe Water. See www.washingtonsafewater.com/bd-of-health.
|
ScienceDaily (Dec. 15, 2010) — In a study that the authors describe as lending credence to the idiom, “by the skin of your teeth,” scientists are reporting that the protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. It raises questions about how this renowned cavity-fighter really works and could lead to better ways of protecting teeth from decay, the scientists suggest.
Their study appears in ACS’ journal Langmuir.
Frank Müller and colleagues point out that tooth decay is a major public health problem worldwide. In the United States alone, consumers spend more than $50 billion each year on the treatment of cavities. The fluoride in some toothpaste, mouthwash and municipal drinking water is one of the most effective ways to prevent decay. Scientists long have known that fluoride makes enamel — the hard white substance covering the surface of teeth — more resistant to decay. Some thought that fluoride simply changed the main mineral in enamel, hydroxyapatite, into a more-decay resistant material called fluorapatite.
The new research found that the fluorapatite layer formed in this way is only 6 nanometers thick. It would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. That’s at least 10 times thinner than previous studies indicated. The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay, or whether fluoride has some other unrecognized effect on tooth enamel. They are launching a new study in search of an answer.
***
Note that Science Daily buys into the theory that fluoride helps teeth but questions how fluoride works.
From Eureka Springs, Carroll-Boone Water District:
CBWD water operators have repeatedly requested information about contaminants in the sodium fluorosilicate they will have to order from overseas, as it is no longer available in the United States. Even though the product, used by other water districts, has an NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) stamp on it, CBWD wants a data sheet on it.
“We continue to be concerned that no supplier or manufacturer will furnish us the information required under the rules of NSF 60,” Allison wrote in a memo to the board. “… we are asking no more or less than what is submitted to NSF to get their approval. We all have an obligation as licensed operators to know what is being put in the water especially if it is a product not needed for potable water.”
Let’s hope you’re not reading this column while munching on a chicken sandwich.
That’s because my topic today is a pair of new scientific studies suggesting that poultry on factory farms are routinely fed caffeine, active ingredients of Tylenol and Benadryl, banned antibiotics and even arsenic.
“We were kind of floored,” said Keeve E. Nachman, a co-author of both studies and a scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Center for a Livable Future. “It’s unbelievable what we found.”
He said that the researchers had intended to test only for antibiotics. But assays for other chemicals and pharmaceuticals didn’t cost extra, so researchers asked for those results as well.
“We haven’t found anything that is an immediate health concern,” Nachman added. “But it makes me question how comfortable we are feeding a number of these things to animals that we’re eating. It bewilders me.”
Likewise, I grew up on a farm, and thought I knew what to expect in my food. But Benadryl? Arsenic? These studies don’t mean that you should dump the contents of your refrigerator, but they do raise serious questions about the food we eat and how we should shop.
It turns out that arsenic has routinely been fed to poultry (and sometimes hogs) because it reduces infections and makes flesh an appetizing shade of pink. There’s no evidence that such low levels of arsenic harm either chickens or the people eating them, but still…
Big Ag doesn’t advertise the chemicals it stuffs into animals, so the scientists conducting these studies figured out a clever way to detect them. Bird feathers, like human fingernails, accumulate chemicals and drugs that an animal is exposed to. So scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Arizona State University examined feather meal — a poultry byproduct made of feathers.
One study, just published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Environmental Science & Technology, found that feather meal routinely contained a banned class of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones. These antibiotics (such as Cipro), are illegal in poultry production because they can breed antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” that harm humans. Already, antibiotic-resistant infections kill more Americans annually than AIDS, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
The same study also found that one-third of feather-meal samples contained an antihistamine that is the active ingredient of Benadryl. The great majority of feather meal contained acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol. And feather-meal samples from China contained an antidepressant that is the active ingredient in Prozac.
Poultry-growing literature has recommended Benadryl to reduce anxiety among chickens, apparently because stressed chickens have tougher meat and grow more slowly. Tylenol and Prozac presumably serve the same purpose.
Researchers found that most feather-meal samples contained caffeine. It turns out that chickens are sometimes fed coffee pulp and green tea powder to keep them awake so that they can spend more time eating. (Is that why they need the Benadryl, to calm them down?)
The other peer-reviewed study, reported in a journal called Science of the Total Environment, found arsenic in every sample of feather meal tested. Almost 9 in 10 broiler chickens in the United States had been fed arsenic, according to a 2011 industry estimate.
These findings will surprise some poultry farmers because even they often don’t know what chemicals they feed their birds. Huge food companies require farmers to use a proprietary food mix, and the farmer typically doesn’t know exactly what is in it. I asked the United States Poultry and Egg Association for comment, but it said that it had not seen the studies and had nothing more to say.
What does all this mean for consumers? The study looked only at feathers, not meat, so we don’t know exactly what chemicals reach the plate, or at what levels. The uncertainties are enormous, but I asked Nachman about the food he buys for his own family. “I’ve been studying food-animal production for some time, and the more I study, the more I’m drawn to organic,” he said. “We buy organic.”
I’m the same. I used to be skeptical of organic, but the more reporting I do on our food supply, the more I want my own family eating organic — just to be safe.
To me, this underscores the pitfalls of industrial farming. When I was growing up on our hopelessly inefficient family farm, we didn’t routinely drug animals. If our chickens grew anxious, the reason was perhaps a fox — and we never tried to resolve the problem with Benadryl.
My take is that the business model of industrial agriculture has some stunning accomplishments, such as producing cheap food that saves us money at the grocery store. But we all may pay more in medical costs because of antibiotic-resistant infections.
Frankly, after reading these studies, I’m so depressed about what has happened to farming that I wonder: Could a Prozac-laced chicken nugget help?
I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook and Google+, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.
Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Palomar Community College
1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069
E-mail: richsauerheb@hotmail.com Phone: 760-402-1173
April 4, 2012
U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationDear reviewers,
This letter is in support of the petition to ban the addition of synthetic industrial fluoride compounds into public drinking water supplies, original petition FDA-2007-P-0346, formerly 2007P-0400.
The France 24 international television news broadcast entitled ‘In Deep Water’ (aired March, 2012, http://www.france24.com/en/20120318-2012-in-deep-water-india-california-fluoride-drinking-clean-france-mineral) interviewed Dr. Kennedy, myself, and Mr. Stewart, general manager of Metropolitan Water District, Los Angeles on water treated with industrial fluoride.
According to Stewart, the entire Los Angeles basin and also the North San Diego County region of Southern California began injecting fluorosilicic acid/caustic soda into all human drinking water a few years ago because of health agency recommendations that MWD entrusts. Previously, Jeff Kightlinger, MWD President, stated that Federal officials from the EPA instruct MWD on procedures and dosages of industrial fluoride to administer to consumers through public water supplies. Taken together, it is clear that MWD officials and employees themselves do not understand the biologic effects of fluorosilicic acid in humans, and instead rely on Federal agencies other than the FDA to determine treatment protocols with fluorides used as though they are safe and effective when taken internally.
In fact, the original plan to use toxic hazardous waste fluorosilicic acid, that the EPA classes as hazardous waste, was delineated by Rebecca Hamner of the EPA years ago. She wrote that a solution to the disposal of toxic hazardous waste fluorosilicic acid is to allow it to be injected into public water supplies as a source of fluoride (see petition and Connett, et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, how Hazardous Waste ended up in our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Politics that Keep it There, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT, 2010).
The U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act forbids any Federal requirement for any substance added into water other than to sanitize water. The U.S. Surgeon General’s announcement in past years that fluoridation is a public health achievement begs the question of why chemicals that contain fluoride are allowed to violate the SDWA. Placing calcium fluoride, a nontoxic material, into water supplies does not compare with adding hazardous waste industrial fluorides lacking calcium, which the EPA Hamner decision authorized. The CDC recommends the injections, the EPA and CDC overlook SDWA statutes, and both allow hazardous industrial waste injections into public water supplies, advise, encourage and in fact orchestrate dosages and mechanisms.
It is commendable in the TV interview that Stewart admits that science about fluoridation is changing and that a public discussion of the injections is good to have. Indeed, Dr. Kennedy, D.D.S. was able to point out that the ingestion of industrial fluoride represents a poisoning, where tooth fluorosis permanent abnormal enamel hypoplasia occurs when systemic ingested fluoride is present when teeth develop under the gums at ages 5-8. Abnormal dental fluorosis is exclusively caused by consumption of fluorides, including sodium fluoride and fluorosilic acid fluoride, and the chief source of fluoride in the bloodstream of consumers in a fluoridated water region is from ingestion of fluoride water (National Research Council, 2006, Washington, D.C.). Fluorosis afflicts approximately 5 million teenagers aged 12-15 in the U.S. In 2004, 41% of 12-15 years olds had tooth fluorosis according to published figures from the CDC. Government statistics indicate there are 13 million teens today in the 12-15 year age group. Those teens in 2004 are now in their 20’s, still with the permanent abnormality except for those who have paid large sums for tooth restorations. The next population of children are now developing fluorosis, since 70% of all water districts continue to inject fluorosilicic acid (and, as well, toothpaste with industrial fluoride intended for topical treatment only is not declining in use).
Dosage instructions for, and handling procedures for, hazardous toxic waste fluorosilicic acid is provided to water districts by the CDC and now also the EPA (see previous letters #6 and #18). In the U.S., neither of these Federal agencies has authority to regulate, request, recommend, promote, advertise, require or provide dosage and treatment instructions for any substance intended to be taken internally to affect human tissue. Such Federal actions lie only within the purview of the U.S. FDA. For example, the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level for fluoride at which water becomes non-potable is not an invitation to inject fluoride on purpose to that level, and certainly is not a ‘dosage’ obtained from clinical trials. The MCL does not take into account that people vary widely in daily water consumption and health conditions. Those with tooth fluorosis in particular are not candidates for further, continuous lifelong fluoride ingestion, nor individuals who have been fluoride poisoned in industry or through intentional ingestion of fluoride toothpaste or other sources. Injection of chemical treatments for internal ingestion on a mass scale are based on a theoretic average, healthy person, when no additional sources of fluoride other than from drinking water are available. No person in such a situation in the heavily fluoridated U.S. is known to exist.
The FDA is commended for requesting recently that fluoride mouthwash advertisers cease from claiming that fluoride taken topically promotes gum health, as there is no evidence in support of this. It is now time to also order water districts, industrial fluorosilicic acid chemical suppliers, and CDC and EPA officials to stop advertising that the ingestion of fluoride from industrial compounds decreases teeth caries, as this gives the impression that no adverse health effects of any kind occur along with its ingestion by all consumers, even diabetics (who drink twice normal water volumes daily) and kidney disease patients with impaired ability to eliminate the fluoride ion. And it further continues the myth that industrial fluoride taken internally can decrease caries, when the CDC published that systemic fluoride does not do so (in: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, August, 2001).
A disturbing N.Y. Times article last week went so far as to reprimand parents for providing bottled regular water to children who developed cavities, when in fact normal water without fluoride does not cause cavities. Caries are caused by sugars in the mouth that are not brushed away after eating that S. mutans metabolizes to acid that can degrade enamel. Fluoride, in the bloodstream systemically at 0.2 ppm or in saliva at 0.02 ppm, after ingestion from fluoridated water does not prevent caries (see letters #9, #13). The accusation that normal drinking water is suddenly now unhealthy, and that parents using it should be denounced, is false. It is an extension of much incorrect information provided by the Oral Health Division of the CDC (see letter #6) that is also supported by certain officials in the EPA. One is free not to oppose fluoride injections, but no one has a moral right to make false claims of effectiveness or safety of its long-term consumption by humans, particularly the infirmed. Natural God-given pristine drinking water (without injected synthetic industrial fluoride) is not to be denigrated, but in fact must be valued and protected.
Sincerely,
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
In plain numbers how many kids are affected by each degree of fluorosis severety?
Sutton PRN, The Failure of Fluoridation (editorial), Fluoride, 1990 January, 23:1, 1-4.
The ultimate failure of fluoridation was inevitable because it was founded on two fallacies, namely that fluorine is an essential element for man and that water containing less than approximately 1 ppm fluoride is “fluoride deficient.”
The major factor which has sustained the push for fluoridation is the widely held belief that, where it operates, it has attained its objective — that it has been shown to reduce substantially the prevalence of dental caries. This belief is based on faith in the honesty and accuracy of statements made by so-called “authorities,” not because the published evidence from fluoridation trials had been investigated with the assistance of an academic statistician.
In 1978 Justice John P. Flaherty, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, presided over a long (2,800 pages of testimony) court case involving fluoridation. He stated:
I seriously believe that few responsible people have objectively reviewed the evidence (1).
An early review which pointed out many of the errors in the four main trials in Grand Rapids, Newburgh and Evanston, U.S.S. and Brantford, Canada, was published by the present author as a monograph (Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials, Melbourne U.P., 1959) (2).
So great was the intolerance of some officials to any criticism of fluoridation, that Cambridge University Press (the distributor of the book in America) was approached by the Nutrition Foundation Inc., and others, in an attempt to suppress the monograph in the U.S.A. Also, the printer’s type at Melbourne University Press was destroyed without authority, thus almost succeeding in preventing publication of the second edition the following year.
Having failed to suppress the monograph, it was omitted from the list of recent books and pamphlets in the Index to Dental Literature (published by the American Dental Association) and the errors it pointed out were simply ignored. Not until fairly recently have errors in those trials been tacitly acknowledged by some fluoridation promoters. In 1987 Jackson (3) stated:
On the question of efficacy, we do not have to rely on the inadequate studies of the past.
Emphasis was then placed on what were claimed to be approximately 100 more recent fluoridation trials which were stated to have “proved” the efficacy of fluoridation. For instance, in 1984 the most recent WHO book on this subject (4), Environmental Health Criteria for Fluorine and Fluorides, was written by a ten-member task group. These scientists gave as their reference, and apparently accepted without investigation, the data displayed in a poster by Murray and Rugg-Gunn in 1979 (5). They stated that “… 120 fluoridation studies from all continents showed a reduction in caries in the range of 50 to 75% for permanent teeth.” These data obviously came from the same source as those in a table in a well-known book by the authors of that poster which listed 128 studies (6).
Mention of such a large number of studies Impresses the scientifically naive, who do not realize that it is not the volume but the quality of research which counts. As the statistician Sir Ronald Fisher stated many years ago (7):
If the design of an experiment is faulty, any method of interpretation which makes it out to be decisive must be faulty too.
In 1988, the scientific status of these studies was investigated. The preliminary results were published in January, 1989, in a letter to Chemical and Engineering News (8) (the official organ of the American Chemical Society) which was publishing a series of letters on fluoridation, including one from the U.S. Surgeon General. My letter stated that in 23 of those 128 fluoridation studies named by Murray and Rugg-Gunn (6) the data from the deciduous and the permanent teeth were listed separately — as 46 studies.
Two studies which included data from more than one town were listed as six studies, and in seven cases reports in different years from the same study were listed as 14 studies. Therefore, more than a quarter of the studies were recorded more than once by Murray and Rugg-Gunn (6) to give the fictitious total of 128 studies.
The most important claim made for fluoridation is that it decreases dental caries in the permanent teeth. Contrary to the statement in that WHO book, 20 studies listed did not present any data for those teeth.
This leaves 74 studies for permanent teeth, but most of these were of very poor scientific quality. One did not refer to fluoridated water, two were anonymous, three were personal communications, and eight were essentially progress reports. Fourteen were not published in a journal but were short communications in newsletters and bulletins issued by state health departments. These obvious deficiencies, not mentioned by this WHO task group (4), were revealed by merely reading the references and a table in the book by Murray and Rugg-Gunn (6).
Four of the remaining 46 studies were the original trials, all of which were mentioned prominently in this WHO book (4), although for 25 years they had been known to be faulty (2). Sixteen of the remaining studies were short reports in state dental newsletters and journals.
A further disturbing fact in the table of Murray and Rugg-Gunn (6) which lists the studies, is that one column, with 128 entries, is headed: “Nonfluoridated Community Caries Experience,” implying that each of the 128 studies listed had a control. This was not the case. Even in the remaining 26 studies — now less than a quarter of the 120 mentioned by this WHO task group (4) — almost every study failed to attempt to use a control or used one which was obviously unsatisfactory. These studies were not designed to estimate examiner error or to eliminate examiner bias.
An attempt was then made to examine each of the remaining 26 studies to see whether they established the claim that fluoridation decreases the prevalence of dental caries substantially. Unfortunately four of the papers listed by Murray and Rugg-Gunn (6) could not be obtained (two could not be found in the Index to Dental Literature or in the Index Medicus.) None of these studies was mentioned by this WHO task group.
Further examination revealed that three more of those 26 studies were obviously incapable of demonstrating that fluoridation is efficacious. A detailed examination was then made of the remaining 19 studies which could possibly have demonstrated the efficacy of fluoridation. Five were held in the U.S.A., five in Australia and New Zealand, three in the United Kingdom and six in other countries. However, on examination of these reports none of them showed in a scientifically-acceptable manner that fluoridation is efficacious.
Therefore, Murray and Rugg-Gunn (6), in what appears to have been comprehensive world-wide search, were unable to locate even one study which demonstrated that fluoridation reduced dental caries.
In contrast, the evidence that it has failed to reduce the number of decayed teeth Is mounting. In their 1972 paper (9) entitled “The Failure of Fluoridation in the United Kingdom,” Schatz and Martin “graphed” the official results from the U.K. Department of Health’s eleven-year study and showed that the slopes indicating increase in caries with age in the treated and control areas were almost identical. Their conclusion:
The official report is valuable because it so clearly reveals the failure of fluoridation in Great Britain.
He added:
The alleged benefits are thus nothing more than a statistical illusion.
More recently, Colquhoun and Mann in New Zealand (10) and Diesendorf in Australia (11) have demonstrated that fluoridation has failed in their countries. Data from a recent survey by the National Institute of Dental Research of 39,207 children aged five to seventeen years from 84 areas in the U.S.A. has shown that fluoridation has failed in America also. The number of decayed, missing and filled teeth in children who had been fluoridated all their lives was no fewer than those who had been brought up in non-fluoridated areas (12).
The original claim, made in innumerable promotional statements, was that fluoridation would reduce the prevalence of decayed teeth by about sixty percent. One of these was a WHO Press Release (WHO/45, September 4, 1957). In 1956, the authors of the Grand Rapids study (13) stated:
In children born since fluoridation was put into effect, the caries rate for the permanent teeth was reduced on the average by about 60 per cent.
It has taken forty-five years to overcome the propaganda claim that fluoridation is very efficacious. However, in 1990 it is now clear that fluoridation has failed.
March 27, 2012, 9:00 pm
Mark Bittman on food and all things related.
The First Amendment to the Constitution, which tops our Bill of Rights, guarantees — theoretically, at least — things we all care about. So much is here: freedom of religion, of the press, of speech, the right to assemble and more. Yet it’s stealthily and incredibly being invoked to safeguard the nearly unimpeded “right” of a handful of powerful corporations to market junk food to children.
It’s been reported that kids see an average of 5,500 food ads on television every year (sounds low, when you think about it), nearly all peddling junk. (They may also see Apple commercials, but not of the fruit kind.) Worse are the online “advergames” that distract kids with entertainment while immersing them in a product-driven environment. (For example: create your own Froot Loops adventure!)
And beyond worse: collecting private data, presumably in order to target children with personalized junk food promotions, as in this Capri Sun advergame, which asks for permission to use your webcam to film you — without first verifying your age.
Remember: 17 percent of kids in the United States are obese (many more are nearly so), and though there is an argument that during the boom-and-bust periods of capitalism’s development our genetic code has encouraged us to consume as many calories as possible, nowhere in our DNA is it written that we need to eat Big Macs, drink soda or eat Twizzlers (much as I personally like the last of these). These cravings become habits as they are taught, encouraged and reinforced by the marketing arm of Big Food, and the federal government appears powerless to change this. Here’s where the First Amendment comes in.
I’ve written before about the government’s pathetic attempt to nudge industry toward at least improving the nutritional profile of junk food advertising targeted at kids in the form of voluntary guidelines proposed by an interagency working group of the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture.
They suggested draft nutrition standards, and although the recommendations were absolutely nonbinding, the food and media industries erupted in opposition, forming an absurdly named lobbying group, the Sensible Food Policy Coalition (“Keep the government out of your kitchen!”), and seemingly managed to quash the release of a final report with actual recommendations.
Viacom, a member of the coalition, retained — that means paid — the renowned constitutional law scholar Kathleen M. Sullivan, who wrote that “Government action undertaken with the purpose and predictable effect of curbing truthful speech is de facto regulation and triggers the same First Amendment concerns raised by overt regulation.” On the flip side, an open letter signed by more than three dozen prominent legal scholars (who were not paid) countered that the guidelines “pose no threat to any rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.”
It’s easy to get lost in the Constitution and forget that we’re talking about children being bombarded by propaganda so clever and sophisticated that it amounts to brainwashing, for products that can and do make them sick. Which brings me to this: an article published in the journal Health Affairs called “Government Can Regulate Food Advertising To Children Because Cognitive Research Shows That It Is Inherently Misleading.” (Journals are not known for tabloid-like headlines, but this does get the point across.)
The authors, Samantha Graff, Dale Kunkel and Seth E. Mermin, note that advertising was only granted First Amendment protection in the 1970s, when a series of decisions established that commercial speech deserves a measure of protection because it provides valuable information to the consumer, like the price and characteristics of a product.
“When the court extended the First Amendment to commercial speech,” Graff told me, “it focused on how consumers benefit from unfettered access to information about products in the marketplace. But this notion has been twisted to advance the ‘rights’ of corporations to express their ‘viewpoints’ in the public debate — not only about their favored political candidates, but also about the wares they are hawking.”
There is a legal test for judging whether commercial speech qualifies for protection under the First Amendment. Called the Central Hudson test, it says that such speech must be truthful and not “actually or inherently misleading.” Since, as the authors point out, children under 12 cannot fully recognize and interpret bias in advertising, they’re not equipped to make rational decisions about it. (Never mind that this is true of many adults also; that’s a different story.) Based on relevant court decisions and scientific evidence, they contend, all advertising directed at children under 12 meets the legal definition of “inherently misleading,” and therefore can be regulated by government.
They conclude that while regulating junk food advertising to kids may face all sorts of political opposition, like this bill to end “attack ads” against junk food, the First Amendment shouldn’t stand in the way of tailored restrictions.
But although this kind of regulation may be constitutional, we’re unlikely to see it any time soon, especially in an era of corporate “personhood.” It’s bad enough that kids are inundated with junk food ads on TV and online, but they’re also seeing them in the schools they attend every day, and on the buses that take them there and back.
Nine states currently allow advertising on school buses, and 11 more, plus the District of Columbia, are considering it this year; nowhere is there language that prohibits food or beverage ads. Maine is the only state with a law prohibiting junk food marketing in schools, but according to a recent report, 85 percent of that state’s schools visited were noncompliant, and most were wholly unaware of the law.
The U.S.D.A.’s much-improved school meals guidelines recently received kudos (even from me). But how in the name of the founding fathers can we justify feeding kids healthy food, while at the same time — and in the same place — encouraging them to eat junk?
Clearly, public schools need all the revenue they can get, but if the only way to sufficiently fund the schools is by undermining the nutrition of the kids who attend them, we’d better bring in more junk food ads, because we’re going to have to pay for something else our kids will need:
Health care.
3-24-12
The news from Washington:
I put an ad in the Everett Herald: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/Everett-press-release-3-18-121.pdf
Which linked to this page: http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases
So we had guests show up at the city council meeting, and we made new members who seem interested in helping organize.
I delivered the city council a copy of the press release: http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases
I explained to the council that the fluoridation materials are not legal. Wash law says that the materials must comply with NSF 60. NSF 60 says that tox studies are done and that additives had to be safe at maximum use levels. But NSF official Stan Hazan has said under oath that tox studies are not being done. Fluoridation can only be done with materials that comply with NSF. Therefore there are no legal fluoridation materials and fluoridation itself is illegal.
Now that the fluoride has been turned off, the tables have turned. They are going to have to take affirmative action to turn it back on. That will be an illegal action.
I gave them a copy of the 2005 letter the FDA wrote stating that making untrue medical claims about a product can be a CRIME. http://fluoride-class-action.com/fda-letter-criminal-sanctions-for-making-untrue-claims
I am going to hammer on that point.
And the local paper published this opinion piece:
The additional good news is that the op-ed editor says that he will publish as many intelligent 300 word letters to the editor as we send him. He has been listening via the web to all the speeches that Fluoride Class Action and Washington Safe Water have been giving.
On Friday Audrey Adams and I – representing Washington Action for Safe Water and Fluoride Class Action – attended the Snohomish Health District seminar on Fluoride.
Howard Pollack, defender of the fluoride faith, cruised along from 8:30 until 10:00 about how great fluoridation was.
At the intermission I handed out my broadsheet:
http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases/snohomish-health-district
Thereafter Howard Pollack seemed to be flustered. He asked me if I knew Paul Connett, and I said “of course”.
Audrey and I asked a lot of questions and made our arguments.
Also present was Mark Weeks, who gave a virtual tour of the water treatment plant. I asked him if they ever suited up in hazmat gear when working with the fluoride. He said they did not even have one. He said they didn’t even use breathers or masks. He said they did not even own any hazmat suits. He said that the ventilation removed ten volumes of air every hour and that was protection enough.
The Washington Dental Foundation was there too. They are unquestioning supporters of fluoridation. I think they are funded by the Pew Foundation. The lady said that if she knew there was anything wrong with fluoridation, they would not support it. I intend to write them a letter.
I will publish more about the conference when I have time. Now back to work.
Sincerely,James Robert Deal , Attorney
James@JamesRobertDeal.com
July 6, 2011
Toilet to RO to tap has three major problems:
1) Toilet– to reverse osmosis– to tap water assumes to make fresh drinking water that is safe, but unfortunately this depends on factors that are out of the control of water districts and also will require addition of caustic soda, sodium hydroxide or Drano, into water, where sodium does not belong in fresh drinking water, to maintain the normal alkaline pH we have in Southern CA. RO removes items that are larger than the water molecule. Fluoride is only now able to be removed well by engineered RO units, where the ion is smaller than the length, and luckily larger than the width, of the water molecule. Unfortunately though, lithium, used as a drug to alter brain function and other purposes in industry, cannot be removed by RO, being at 90 picometer radius far smaller even than the tiny fluoride ion with a 119 picometer radius. Lithium is now found in community water supplies, some being natural, but much from drugs, axle grease chemicals, lithium batteries, and other chemical wastes that become disposed into sewers. Water districts do not routinely test for lithium, so any San Diego ‘approval’ of toilet-to RO-to tap water would have little meaning. The only mechanism that can separate lithium from water to make it potable is distillation, or as in nature, evaporation of ocean water (with its dumped treated sewage) by the sun to form rain and snowfall. This information was forwarded to Mayor Sanders yesterday.
2) Lithium is now being touted as an anti-suicide drug that should be added to water supplies under the pretense of saving the several thousand suicide victims we have in the U.S. annually. The argument is based on the fact that lithium is often found in natural water supplies at 0.03 ppm or higher in some regions. These promoters who believe in ‘eugenics’ claim it ‘has no effects on humans’ (to silence critics) and yet at the same time claim it lowers suicide rates, which obviously if true and not a false correlation, is affecting behavior of people in ways yet unknown and with brain side effects, after permanent ingestion, not assessed. A lobotomy is known with certainty to prevent suicides–does this mean we should treat all people with a lobotomy to spare the 13,000 expected suicide victims this coming year? Of course not. Further, the highest suicide demographic in the U.S. today is the U.S. military for reasons not certain. are we to drug the U.S. military with lithium to decrease this high suicide rate? Again, absurd.
3) San Diego is a famous fine tourist destination, where people from around the world come to visit a perceived paradise. The tourism industry in the city would be placed at severe risk once any toilet to RO to tap water program were instituted city-wide. How many visitors would feel good about using water in a city where water was so scarce people were forced into such a recycling mode?
4) San Diego’s Mayor already approved fluosilcic acid contaminated materials to be injected into all city water supplies (while blaming this on a CA law intended to help teeth but which was based on falsely correlations and extrapolated observations), so it is puzzling why the Mayor told the news media that the use of toilet–to RO–to tap is the ‘hardest decision he will ever make’. Excuse us!!, but we citizens already made the decision by voting twice against fluosilicic acid injections. For every 150 tons of fluosilicic acid added into San Diego water supplies (which began February 2011), 88 tons of contaminated water and 50 tons of sodium hydroxide (not present in natural fresh drinking water) accompany the 12 tons of fluoride it also contains. For sodium alone, this has been the straw that broke the camel’s back, where avocado production has been substantially reduced by the total sodium present in city water supplies now. Sodium abatement is a National problem, particularly in the Southwest where the Colorado River has hundreds of industrial waste emission points that are allowed to release a ton of salt daily into the River. The final injection by water districts of Drano to minimize the acidity of the fluosilcic acid treated water was sufficient to elevate sodium to 93 ppm which is known to be growth-inhibiting for many plants.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. chemistry, UCSD; currently Palomar College, San Marcos, CA
EVERETT HALTS FLUORIDATION – URGED NOT TO RESTART
LEAD, ARSENIC, HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, SILICOFLUORIDE
ADDED TO DRINKING WATER
Notice of Liability Served on Seattle and Everett
Federal Court Suits Filed in California and Maryland
Access links at: http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases/snohomish-health-district
MANY FLUORIDES. Seattle, Everett, and most US cities that fluoridate, do so with silicofluoride (SiF); around 8% use sodium fluoride (NaF). SiF and NaF are much more toxic than naturally occurring calcium fluoride (CaF). CaF can be fairly pure, depending on its source. NaF is industrial grade but relatively pure; SiF is industrial grade toxic waste, highly contaminated with heavy metals. SiF contains and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride, one of the most poisonous and penetrating of all substances.
TOXIC WASTE. The silicofluoride used is the unfiltered and unprocessed scrubber liquor from the smoke stacks of phosphate fertilizer plants in Florida, Louisiana, Mexico, and China. It contains trace amounts of nearly every element on the periodic table. It is not pharmaceutical grade. SiF has never been approved by the FDA, EPA, or any other federal or state agency for consumption in tap water. Fluorides have been approved for topical use, as in toothpaste, but the fluoride is to be spat out. If it is swallowed, one is to call poison control.
TOOTH DECAY. Fluoride is added allegedly to reduce caries, however, documents posted on the CDC website claim only an 18-25% reduction in caries. Other credible studies show no reduction. Tooth decay has dropped just as much in non-fluoridated Europe as in fluoridated United States, so fluoridation cannot be the causal factor. Tooth decay correlates with poverty and bad diet, not with the percentage of the population fluoridated.
BLACKS, HISPANICS, AND THE POOR in general are more sensitive to lead, arsenic, and fluoride than the general population. Alveda King, Bernice King, and Andrew Young lead the Fluoride-Gate movement. They see fluoridation as a new civil rights issue because it hits minorities hardest.
TOPICAL. Documents posted on the CDC website admit that the effect of fluoride on teeth is topical and not systemic, but strangely, CDC still endorses drinking fluoride. Other documents there admit that 41% of children 12 – 15 years old have dental fluorosis, while 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and up to 100% of enamel impacted). Fluorosis can be ugly. Fluorosis should not be forced on people just so tooth decay can allegedly be reduced and then only slightly, if at all. The way to cut tooth decay is to quit eating and drinking sugary junk foods, eating more vegetables, to teach brushing and flossing, and to bring basic dental care under the Affordable Care Act.
PERVASIVE. If we add fluoride to tap water, then fluoride is in everything made from tap water – cola, beer, coffee, soup, bread, cereal, restaurant food, and fruit juices reconstituted with tap water.
SiF CONTAINS LEAD. The EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead is 15 ppb, and the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) is zero. Lead permeates all cells in the body, reduces IQ, and causes kidney disease and high blood pressure.
LEAD IN SCHOOL DRINKING WATER. In 2004 Seattle papers reported lead at up to 1,600 ppb (1.6 ppm, a very high level) found in drinking water in old Seattle schools. SiF, more so than sodium fluoride, leaches lead from pipes and faucets.
New brass pipes and faucets contain around 8% lead and older pipes contain as much as 30% lead. Most old schools, old homes, old apartment buildings, old hospitals, old office buildings, and old factories contain pipes with high lead content, which SiF will leach out. When water districts stop fluoridating, lead levels in wate and in blood drop.
Seattle commissioned reports on the subject. Not one report even mentioned the possibility of a connection between lead levels and fluoridation! It is politically risky to mention anything critical about fluoride. Seattle began replacing pipes in schools – at enormous expense. Terminating fluoridation greatly reduces lead leaching and at no cost. Moreover, even if replacing pipes in schools would solve the problem in schools, it would not solve the problem in old homes, old apartment buildings, old hospitals, old office buildings, and old factories.
MONEY, BLINDSPOTS. The PR manipulators who sold us fluoride are the same ones who sold us tetraethyl lead. Chemical, pharmaceutical, fertilizer, and toothpaste companies donate to dental and medical colleges, which indoctrinate dentists and physicians to endorse fluoridation. We trust government agencies and those with MD and DDS after their names. The ADA tells dentists that they need not try to understand the science behind fluoridation. They need only accept the mystery and spread the gospel of fluoridation. Dentists and researchers who question it have been maligned and have had their careers ruined.
CDC, EPA. The CDC is one small branch within the CDC, which is run by pro-fluoridation dentists and pushes fluoridation. But the CDC has no authority whatsoever to approve, promote, or finance fluoridation. The CDC, EPA, and the surgeon general all endorse fluoridation. They say it is one of the greatest health advances of the 20th Century. However, endorsements prove nothing. One must look at the science. The most significant endorsement or non-endorsement to consider is that of the EPA scientists’ union. They disagree with the non-scientist administrators and oppose fluoridation and do so based on the science. Following release of the 2006 National Research Council Report on Fluoridation, it is clear that fluoridation is instead one of the greatest frauds of the 20th Century.
ARSENIC. SiF also contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen. For arsenic the MCL is 10 ppb and the MCLG is zero. A zero MCLG for lead and arsenic means that there is no level of lead or arsenic which can safely be added to drinking water.
SiF AND NaF are mutagens, poisons, and probable carcinogens. As little as seven grams of SiF or NaF, the weight of seven paper clips, can kill an adult. It would take a half pound of naturally occurring CaF to do the same. The .8 milligram of SiF per liter which our cities add to water is of course not immediately fatal. However, healthy adult kidneys only excrete half of the fluoride we consume, while the body retains the other half. Fluoride seeks out calcium and is retained in bones and other calcium rich areas of the body. Once in our bones, fluoride cannot be removed.
KIDNEYS AND BONES. Fluoride builds up in kidneys and prevents them from functioning normally and may hasten death. Those on dialysis who quit consuming fluoride may recover and some may be able to quit dialysis. After a lifetime of drinking fluoridated water, bone can be up to 12,000 ppm fluoride, depending on water hardness and diet, making bones brittle. Fractured pelvises are twice as common in fluoridated areas. Fluoride of all kinds affects bones, joints, and tendons and exacerbates arthritis.
ALUMINUM UPTAKE. Water treatment plants add aluminum to precipitate dirt. The fluoride ion binds with the aluminum, and aluminum fluoride passes the blood-brain barrier, delivering aluminum into the brain, which is believed to cause or worsen Alzheimer’s disease.
OTHER SYMPTOMS. Fluoride interrupts and inhibits enzymatic action. It denatures proteins. SiF is an anticholinesterase inhibitor. It damages brain tissue and reduces IQ while the fetus is still in the womb. It attacks the thyroid, pituitary, pineal, and other glands. Fluoride incorporates into atherosclerotic plaque in coronary arteries and the aorta in patients with cardiovascular disease. Around 1% of the population is so hypersensitized to fluoridated water that they have to move to a place where the water is not fluoridated.
BABIES are highly sensitive to lead, arsenic, and fluoride because their cells are still dividing and because they drink so much fluids relative to their body weight. Their kidneys are not mature and excrete only 20% of fluoride consumed. CDC, ADA, AMA, and the surgeon general have advised that if formula is mixed using fluoridated water fluorosis will result. The poor are unable to buy fluoride-free water home or filter out the fluoride. Only an expensive reverse osmosis filter, ionizer, or distiller can remove the tiny fluoride ion. The poor are definitely being harmed, poor babies in particular. All are harmed; some more quickly than others.
ATHLETES, HARD LABORERS, DIABETICS, and those with kidney disease are highly vulnerable because they drink up to ten times as much water as typical people. Fluoride is a drug, but the dose cannot be controlled.
IN WESTERN WASHINGTON, we are especially susceptible to the slow but certain ravages of fluoride because our snow melt water is exceptionally soft and contains little calcium, which would bind with and tie up fluoride to some extent.
THE NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION – NSF – is a chemical company trade association, funded by EPA to certify fluoride as safe and to approve its use. Some 47 states require that only NSF 60 fluoride be used, including Washington. WAC 246-290-220(3), says: “any treatment chemicals … added to water intended for potable use must comply with ANSI/NSF Standard 60. The NSF web site and the NSF Standard for Drinking Water Additives, say: “Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and … to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. …” However, NSF official Stan Hazan admitted under oath in deposition that toxicological studies are not being done. (See Hazen deposition, pages 22, 67). Thus fluoridation materials do not “comply” with NSF 60 and fluoridation with them is illegal.
SCRUBBER LIQUOR. Cities buy SiF by the tanker truck load and pour it at a steady rate, day after day into our water. Everett buys around 18 loads per year at around $16,000 per load. SiF particularly corrodes equipment and shortens its useful life. Hazmat suits must be worn to handle SiF. When the liquid is spilled on concrete, it burns a hole through it, as it will do to steel and glass. When fluoride is added to water, extra sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate – Draino® or soda ash – must be added to reduce acidity.
NO INFORMED CONSENT. Fluoride is not a mere additive such as chlorine, which is there to kill microbes. The FDA and the Washington Board of Pharmacy say that fluoride when used to prevent dental caries meets the definition of a drug. Although it is an unapproved drug and in reality a poison, its administration is medical treatment. Informed consent before treatment is a fundamental principle of law. Administering it without prior consent is a violation of ethics and freedom of choice.
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY have been served on Seattle and Everett in connection with the lead, arsenic, and fluoride which they add to our water. Cities should consult with their insurance carriers to confirm they will be covered when the class action and mass toxic tort actions come. Failure on the part of these cities to look at the science regarding fluoridation constitutes reckless indifference to the harms caused and expose cities and water districts to liability. If the FDC chooses to assert its jurisdiction over this area, there could be individual criminal liability.
CAPTIVE WATER DISTRICTS, those which buy fluoridated water from Seattle and Everett never voted on fluoridation. In the meantime they should demand that they be held harmless from liability.
LEGAL FRONT. fluoridation lawsuits which have been filed in federal courts in California, Maryland, and in the Washington courts. Three safe water groups presented their case to the Seattle City Attorney’s office on January 9. Fluoride Class Action has written to Jenny Durkin, US Attorney in Seattle, asking her to bring appropriate action to stop these violations of law.
CLEAN AND PURE WATER is a fundamental human right. Forcing us all to take a toxic waste drug such as fluoride violates our right to control our own bodies. It should not be our duty to remove the toxic waste. Water departments should stop adding it. Those who want to consume fluoride can swallow a little toothpaste or get a Luride prescription.
MORE READING: Letters to HHS and EPA, 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation. Dr. Paul Connett has written the definitive work on the subject entitled The Case Against Fluoridation
Contact form more information:
James Robert Deal, Attorney WSBA Number 8103, President, Fluoride Class Action James@Fluoride-Class-Action.com 425-771-1110
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (Chapters 19, 20 and 21)
|
|
Author: Philip R.N. Sutton. Published by Melbourne University Press, 1960.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Permission has been granted for “Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (Chapters 19, 20 and 21)” to be published on the web-site of Australian Fluoridation News (AFN). As a consequence of the AFN being a sub-domain of www.fluoride.org.uk, it will therefore also appear on the latter mentioned web-site (this has been conditionally agreed by the AFN author, Glen walker). This monograph has been split into 11 sections. |
Index
This page: Cover
General introduction and foreword: Introduction
Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials 1a to 1d: 1a | 1b | 1c | 1d
Criticisms and comments 2a to 2d: 2a | 2b | 2c | 2d
References and glossary: 3
http://www.fluoridealert.org/d-easley.htm
Misinformed fluoridation promoters falsely assure unquestioning and confused legislators that fluoride-laced water is safe for everyone and no credible evidence proves otherwise. However, hundreds of studies and an abundance of evidence prove them wrong, reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).
Here’s what happened in 2011
1) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommends lowering water fluoride levels due to fluoride’s harmful dental effects For over 6 decades, HHS assured Americans that artificially fluoridated water was safe for everyone to drink. But they were wrong. About 50% of U.S. adolescents have fluoride-ruined teeth or dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. So HHS’ recommends lowering “optimal” water fluoride levels.
2) HHS recommends avoiding fluoridated water when making infant formula to prevent dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) Many government, health and dental agencies report that babies who consume fluoridated water are more apt to have fluoride-discolored/damaged teeth without benefit of less tooth decay. (References: http://www.FormulaFluoride.Webs.com)
3) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will lower safe water fluoride levels to protect bones and teeth The prestigious National Research Council found EPA’s current safe water fluoride levels can adversely affect bones and teeth. EPA’s Office of Water will lower safe water fluoride levels
4) U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports growing numbers of U.S. children have fluoride-damaged teeth, arguably at epidemic proportions.
Due to fluoride over-exposure, the CDC reports that over 41% of 12-15 years olds are afflicted with dental fluorosis. However, no research was conducted to discover what fluoride over-exposure has done to children’s bones.
5) Fumigant sulfuryl fluoride found to leave health-damaging levels of fluoride residues on food EPA’s Office of Pesticides proposes to ban fumigant sulfuryl fluoride because harmful fluoride levels remain on many foods e.g. cocoa beans and dried eggs.
6) Even fluoride-seller, Colgate, reports that studies confirm “the association between infant formula consumption and permanent dentition fluorosis.”
Colgate joins many government, health and dental organizations in advising that infant formula should not be mixed with fluoridated water to lower babies’ risk of developing dental fluorosis (http://www.FormulaFluoride.Webs.com), but this is little publicized.
7) Infant juices contain non-labeled tooth-damaging fluoride levels Commonly-consumed infant fruit juices contain fluoride, some at levels higher than recommended for pubic water supplies, according to research presented at the International Association for Dental Research annual meeting.
More studies published linking fluoride to human brain damage and lower IQ A review of studies published in Neurologia reports, “The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system.” The research team reports, “It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride.”
9) New Study Fails to Refute Fluoride-Osteosarcoma Link A paper in the Journal of Dental Research by dentist Chester Douglass and colleagues, “An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma,” claims to show no association between fluoride bone levels and osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer. However, Douglass’ study has serious scientific flaws and is incapable of disproving a previous study (Bassin et al., 2006) which linked water fluoridation to osteosarcoma.
10) Prominent Hispanic Civil Rights Group Opposes Fluoridation The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) opposes fluoridation as a civil rights violation and because “the National Research Council in 2006 established that there are large gaps in the research on fluoride’s effects on the whole body; a fact that contradicts previous assurances made by public health officials and by elected officials, that fluorides and fluoridation have been exhaustively researched.”
11) Prominent Civil Rights Leaders Oppose Fluoridation Because fluoride can disproportionately harm poor citizens and black families, Atlanta civil rights leaders, former UN Ambassador Andrew Young, Reverend Gerald Durley, PhD, Martin Luther King’s daughters, Bernice and Alveda. asked Georgia legislators to repeal the state’s mandatory water fluoridation law.
12) Tennessee House Speaker, Other Legislators Call for Halt to State Promotion of Fluoridation Bipartisan group cites risks for citizens and water utilities. Tennessee, once 99% fluoridated, is now down in the low 90′s according to the American Dental Association News.
13) Water Fluoridation Injury Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court A 13-year-old’s fluoride-discolored teeth were allegedly caused by drinking fluoridated bottled water since infancy. Her mom is suing the bottlers for the cost to cover up the unsightly teeth.
14) Review of Fluoride Supplement Studies Show No Evidence of Safety – No Benefit Either According to the Cochrane Oral Health Group, fluoride supplements fail to reduce tooth decay in primary teeth, permanent teeth cavity-reduction is dubious and health risks are little studied — The Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends NO fluoride supplementation because “Too much fluoride causes streaks in the teeth” and it’s impossible to determine a child’s individual daily fluoride intake from all sources. Sodium fluoride supplements “have not been found by FDA to be safe or effective,” according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
15) Dental hygienist’s Master’s thesis and experience shows no Benefit from fluoridation In a Master’s thesis, a dental hygienist, with 20 years experience in a clinic for low-income children, noticed these children had significant tooth decay in spite of fluoridation. When people were educated about fluoride’s risks and benefits, they stopped drinking fluoridated water, she reported.
16) CDC Reveals Fluoridation Fails Alaskans The CDC reports that 91% of rural Alaskan Native adolescents have cavities whether their water is fluoridated or not. The CDC acknowledges that poor diets and lack of dental care are the probable culprits.
17) Pew Charitable Trust uses propaganda, PR and political clout to force more fluoride into people who don’t want it.
The Pew Charitable Trust paid for lobbyists to misinform Arkansas state legislators into mandating fluoridation statewide which nullified local referendums where residents said NO to fluoridation. Pew continues to contaminate local fluoridation politics in New Hampshire, Iowa, Austin and elsewhere.
18) The Council of Canadians, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and Great Lakes United demand an end to fluoridation Council of Canadians’ Unfluoridate It! campaign. Great Lakes United statement against the ‘practice of artificial drinking water fluoridation.’
19) Dr. Joe Mercola, owner of the world’s most visited natural health website conducted Fluoride Awareness Week Dr. Mercola reveals the science behind fluoride’s adverse health effects to the brain, bones, the thyroid and pineal glands.
20) New York City Council Members introduce legislation (Int 0463-2011) to stop fluoridation City Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. says, “There is a growing body of evidence that fluoride does more harm than good.”
“Those who claim fluoridation is harmless for everyone and that fluoride’s health effects have been exhaustively studied cannot be trusted because that’s simply not true,” says Beeber.
http://www.fluoridation.webs.com
SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc., PO Box 263, Old Bethpage, NY 11804
Dr. Howard Koh, Assistant Secretary for Health, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in a video commentary published on Medscape.com, March 8, 2011.
Koh says, “…tooth enamel formation occurs from birth until about 8 years old. This is also the time when dental fluorosis may occur with excess fluoride consumption.”
Koh advises low-fluoride bottled water be used for routinely reconstituting infant formula.
Reference: Government Perspectives on Healthcare;HHS: Proposed Guidelines on Fluoride in Drinking Water,A Commentary By Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738322
—–
From the Centers for Disease Control
http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/safety/infant_formula.htm#1
“Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing the faint, white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis.”
——
Academy of General Dentistry
http://www.agd.org/public/oralhealth/Default.asp?IssID=303&Topic=F&ArtID=1247#body
“If you add fluoridated water to your infant’s baby formula, you may be putting your child at risk of developing dental fluorosis…”
————————-
Mayo Clinic
“Regularly mixing a baby’s formula with fluoridated tap water can provide enough fluoride to cause fluorosis — mild white streaks on the teeth or more severe pitting or staining of tooth enamel. Fluorosis can affect both baby teeth and permanent teeth.”
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/infant-formula/MY00193/NSECTIONGROUP=2
————————————–
Vermont Department of Health
“The Vermont Department of Health recommends mixing powdered or concentrated baby formula with water that is fluoride-free, or contains very low levels of fluoride, for feeding infants under 12 months of age. Recent studies have discovered the possibility that infants in this age group may be consuming more fluoride than necessary.”
http://healthvermont.gov/news/2006/120806fluoride.aspx
—————
New York State Department of Health
Parents who are concerned about the risk of enamel fluorosis, can mix liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride. Examples are water that is labeled purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water.
http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/dental/fluoride_guidance_during_infancy.htm
———————–
California Dental Association
“…mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis for infants primarily fed in this way may increase the chance of a child’s developing enamel fluorosis,” according to the CDA’s Feb 2010 Report, Oral Health During Pregnancy and Early Childhood: Evidence-Based Guidelines for Health Professionals. http://www.cdafoundation.org/
——————————–
National Research Council In March 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) cautioned that infants can fluoride-overdose via reconstituted baby formula. (2) The
American Dental Association (ADA) passed this information on to its members in a November 2006 e-gram.
————
American Dental Association_Evidence-based_Infant_Formula_Chairside_Guide.
Recommendations for infants who consume reconstituted infant formula as the main source of nutrition: • Continue use of liquid or powdered concentrate infant formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated drinking water while being cognizant of the potential risk for enamel fluorosis. • Use ready-to-feed formula or liquid or powdered concentrate formula reconstituted with water that is either fluoride-free or has low concentrations of fluoride when the potential risk for enamel fluorosis is a concern. http://ebd.ada.org/contentdocs/ADA_Evidence-based_Infant_Formula_Chairside_Guide.pdf
—————————————
Delta Dental
http://oralhealth.deltadental.com/Children/Infant/22,DD63
The American Dental Association expert panel concluded that for infants from birth to age 12 months who consume reconstituted infant formula as the main source of nutrition, the continued use of powdered or liquid concentrate formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated drinking water is appropriate, as long as the parent or caregiver is cognizant of the potential risk for enamel fluorosis. If parents and caregivers are concerned about the potential for increasing a child’s risk of developing enamel fluorosis, breast feeding, ready-to-feed formula or powdered or liquid concentrate formula reconstituted with water that either is fluoride free or contains low concentrations of fluoride are an alternative. This type of water is often labeled “purified,” “demineralized,” “deionized,” “distilled” or “produced through reverse-osmosis.”
—————-
Minnesota Dental Association
If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free, or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis. Examples are water that is labeled purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water. Many grocery stores sell these types of drinking water for less than $1 per gallon.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/57490.php
—-
Maryland Government Agency
Regularly mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water may increase your child’s risk of developing faint white markings or streaks on the teeth — a sign of mild enamel fluorosis.If you’re concerned about fluorosis, you can minimize your baby’s exposure to fluoride by using ready-to-feed formula. You can also alternate using tap water and nonfluoridated water for formula preparation, or mix powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with low-fluoride water most or all of the time. CDC also recommends that parents can use low-fluoride bottled water some of the time to mix infant formula; these bottled waters are labeled as de-ionized, purified, demineralized, or distilled. http://fha.maryland.gov/oralhealth/community-water.cfm#formula
——————
Chester Water Authority (Chester, Pennsylvania)
Parents should consider preparing powdered or liquid concentrate formulas for infants using water that contains no or low levels of fluoride, if reconstituted formula is the primary source of nutrition for the infant. Other sources of infant nutrition could include breast milk or ready to feed (no-mix) formula, both of which are low in fluoride.Some fluoride is beneficial, but dental fluorosis or mottling of the teeth can occur if an infant receives too much fluoride. Infants are susceptible to receiving too much fluoride due to their low body weight and high fluid intake
http://www.chesterwater.com/fluoridation.htm
—————————–
Wisconsin WIC If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis. http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/wic/WICPRO/training/fluoride.pdf
————————-
American Public Health Association: Policy Statement Database
Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis for infants primarily fed in this way may increase the chance of a child’s developing the faint white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis. Occasional use of water containing optimal levels of fluoride should not appreciably increase a child’s risk for fluorosis. Studies have not shown that teeth are likely to develop more esthetically noticeable forms of fluorosis, even with regular mixing of formula with fluoridated water.
http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1373— —
Des Moines Water Works
Powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride. These types of water are labeled as purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water http://www.dmww.com/upl/documents/water-quality/lab-reports/fact-sheets/fluoride.pdf
—————
Smile Florida SmileFlorida.org is a product of the Florida Dental Association, Inc.,
Some infant formulas may already contain beneficial fluoride levels from water used during the manufacture of the product. If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride-free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis.
These include water labeled as purified, demineralized, deionized or distilled, as well as reverse-osmosis filtered water.
http://smileflorida.org/care/fluoridation.html
————————-
Broomfield, Colorado
The American Dental Association has recommended that for infants being fed primarily reconstituted infant formula, a fluoride-free water source such as demineralized or distilled water be used to reduce fluoride intake. For http://www.broomfield.org/environment/FactSheets/Fact%20Sheet%208.pdf
——————-
Ormond Beach, Florida puts infant warning advisory on Annual Water Quality Report
http://www.ormondbeach.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2961
Dental Associations Advise Against Fluoride in Baby Formula
Although the American Dental Association and the Florida Dental Association both endorse fluoridated water as an effective way to prevent tooth decay, they have issued an advisory recommending that non-fluoridated bottled water be used in powdered or liquid-concentrate baby formula for infants.The advisories note that too much fluoride can cause fluorosis, resulting in a discoloration or streaks on teeth.
—–
Sugarland Texas
However, recent studies revealed infants might receive greater than optimal amounts of fluoride when fed formula mixed with water containing fluoride. The ADA recommends ways to reduce fluoride intake from reconstituted infant formula: • Breast milk is widely acknowledged as the most complete form of nutrition for infants. • Ready-to-feed formula is preferred to help ensure fluoride intake does not exceed optimal amounts. • Liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula mixed with bottled water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride can reduce the risk of fluorosis. • Occasional use of water containing optimal levels of fluoride should not appreciably increase a child’s risk for fluorosis.
http://www.sugarlandtx.gov/utilities/reports/documents/WaterReportv10.2.pdf
——
Remember all of that cold-war-era paranoia about fluoridation in drinking water? It is hard to believe, but decades after its value in preventing tooth decay was clearly demonstrated, questions are again being raised.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called fluoridation of water supplies one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century. Yet in the last four years, some 200 municipalities around the country have stopped fluoridating their water. And now in New Jersey, where most residents do not have fluoridated water, there is a battle in the State Legislature over a bill that would require all public water systems to add fluoride.
Critics no longer contend that fluoridation is a Communist plot. Instead, they express concerns about the costs involved, improper government control over a personal decision, and potential health dangers.
Fluoride clearly protects against cavities and tooth loss, but it can cause bone weakness and tooth damage if ingested at high levels for many years. Federal regulators do need to provide consistent, more up-to-date guidelines for the best levels of fluoridation, reflecting the latest research. In 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency set the maximum safe concentration for fluoride in drinking water at 4.0 milligrams per liter. Along with the maximum standard, the agency also set a secondary, voluntary standard (nonenforceable against water systems) that fluoride levels be 2.0 milligrams or less per liter, balancing the benefits of tooth-decay protection against potential discoloration or pitting in children’s teeth.
In 2006, after reviewing new data at the E.P.A.’s request, a panel of experts appointed by the National Research Council concluded that the four-milligram maximum should be lowered (it did not say by how much) to prevent tooth enamel damage in children and bone fractures in adults. Six years later, the standard remains unchanged, and the E.P.A. is still pondering whether to revise it.
Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services also offers advisory guidance for fluoride levels to prevent cavities without causing harm to teeth. In January 2011, it proposed setting its recommended level at 0.7 milligrams per liter. It originally planned to publish a final recommendation last spring, but it is still reviewing thousands of comments it received. The department and the E.P.A. need to clear up public confusion. Fluoridation has been a boon to public health. The agencies should issue final standards and guidance as soon as possible.
For all its renown as an engine of pharmaceutical and biotechnology progress, New Jersey has long lagged in what public health officials call one of the 10 biggest health advances of the last century: fluoridating its water.
While 72 percent of Americans get their water from public systems that add fluoride, just 14 percent of New Jersey residents do, placing the state next to last, ahead of only Hawaii, and far behind nearby New York (72 percent), Pennsylvania (54 percent) and Connecticut (90 percent).
A bill in the Legislature would change that, requiring all public water systems in New Jersey to add fluoride to the supply. But while the proposal has won support from a host of medical groups, it has proved unusually politically charged.
Similar bills have failed in the state since 2005, under pressure from the public utilities lobby and municipalities that argue that fluoridation costs too much, environmentalists who say it pollutes the water supply, and antifluoride activists who argue that it causes cancer, lowers I.Q. and amounts to government-forced medicine.
Public health officials argue that the evidence does not support any of those arguments — and to the contrary, that fluoridating the water is the single best weapon in fighting tooth decay, the most prevalent disease among children.
But they also say they are fighting a proliferation of misleading information. While conspiracy theories about fluoride in public water supplies have circulated since the early days of the John Birch Society, they now thrive online, where anyone, with a little help from Google, can suddenly become a medical authority.
“In the age of the Internet, it’s very easy to spread many of these rumors,” said Barbara F. Gooch, the associate director for science in the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “People go looking for information about why this is bad, and they find it pretty easily.”
So while William Bailey, the acting director of the Oral Health Division and the chief dental officer of the United States Public Health Service, calls it “the ideal public health measure,” opponents online argue the unproven allegation that the Nazis used fluoride to sedate concentration camp victims.
Jennifer DiOrio, a high school teacher who lives in Bedminster, said she began reading about fluoride online recently after a neighbor mentioned concerns, and now she tells colleagues and others the dangers of the legislation. “They are medicating us without our consent, and it’s unethical and illegal,” she said.
Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first community in the United States to fluoridate its water, in 1945. The practice spread after a study showed that children there had 50 percent to 70 percent less tooth decay over the next 15 years than children in communities without fluoridated water.
Since then, many other studies have shown that adding fluoride to water decreases tooth decay by an additional 25 percent, on top of the benefit from twice-a-day brushing, for children and adults. Water providers would typically pass on the cost to customers, but the C.D.C. says that every dollar spent on fluoridating water saves $38 in dental costs.
The federal government’s Healthy People 2020 initiative aims to have 80 percent of Americans receiving fluoridated water within the next eight years. Twelve states have laws providing for statewide fluoridation, the C.D.C. said.
In New Jersey, water providers typically serve several towns, meaning that all must agree to fluoridate their water — and typically they do not.
Opponents and supporters of the fluoride legislation believe it has a higher chance of passing this year, in part because it has bipartisan sponsorship. Gov. Chris Christie has not said whether he would sign the bill if it passed.
The state’s League of Municipalities has opposed the bill, concerned about the cost of what it calls an unfunded mandate. The New Jersey Utilities Association testified against it, arguing that it “is known to have adverse health effects in certain quantities” and that it would cost water companies anywhere from $400,000 to $64 million.
“We think the cost benefit is not there,” said Karen Alexander, the president of the association.
Many opponents say their information has come online, from national groups like the Fluoride Action Network and Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, which argue that fluoridation would cost $5 billion statewide. On their Web sites, the groups argue that fluoridation would lead to fluorosis, a rare staining of the teeth. They say fluoride has many adverse health effects, including bone cancer, and no proven benefit.
But public health officials say that the National Academy of Sciences examined the studies linking fluoride to lowered I.Q. and could not substantiate them. Similarly, two large and recent studies, one from Harvard and the National Cancer Institute, the other in California, found no link between fluoride and bone cancer. Fluorosis in the United States, they say, tends to be barely visible.
“The opposition can point to one or two studies that say this or that,” said Dr. Bailey, of the C.D.C. “We look at the overall weight of the evidence and what expert panels have said.”
There are several ways to fluoridate water, depending on the water system, said Kip Duchon, the national fluoride engineer for the C.D.C. But they are not cost-prohibitive, and most are simple, he said.
Jared Martin, 27, who started a No Fluoride New Jersey page on Facebook after reading about the bill and fluoride online, acknowledged that there was evidence to support fluoridation.
“That’s the thing,” he said. “When you’re searching the Internet, it depends where you’re looking.” But he was made suspicious, as were many opponents, when the federal Department of Health and Human Services revised the recommended level of fluoride in water to avoid the possibility that children would receive too much. The recommended level had been 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter; the department last year advised that it not exceed the lower end of that range.
In the last four years, about 200 municipalities nationwide have stopped fluoridating the water. Antifluoride groups cite this as evidence that more people are acknowledging the dangers.
But many of those places ceased for financial, not health, reasons. And nationwide, the trend has been toward more people receiving fluoridated water. San Diego, long the largest city not to fluoridate, began doing so last year. Atlantic City also did so, citing the health benefits.
Some opponents argue that the state could less expensively fight tooth disease by promoting good toothbrushing or fluoride treatments in schools.
But Senator Joe Vitale, a sponsor of the legislation in New Jersey, said, “That’s not going to happen in cities like Newark or Camden or Paterson, where they can barely keep the lights on.”
Cavan Brunsden, a pediatric dentist in Old Bridge and a supporter of the bill, noted that many states went further — New York, for instance, has begun requiring dental visits as a condition of attending school.
Not fluoridating the water, he said, is “an egregious example of the state not fulfilling the health care needs of its citizens.”
“It reduces decay whether you live in Newark or Short Hills,” he said. “Science has proven it. It’s unfortunate that science isn’t part of the debate.”
(other press releases below)
PRESS RELEASE:
EVERETT HALTS FLUORIDATION
DENTIST, ATTORNEYS, AND SAFE WATER GROUPS
URGE EVERETT NOT TO RESTART
March 18, 2012
Summary:
Everett Utilities turned off the fluoride on February 9.
Hydrogen fluoride – HF – had weakened the CPVC pipes in the fluoridation building to the point where they had lost their integrity and were leaking HF. HF also known as hydrofluoric acid, is among the most poisonous and penetrating of all substances.
Everett sells water to some 700,000 people from Marysville to Edmonds.
The fluoridation building sits on one corner of the treatment plant, which is located north of Sultan at Lake Chaplain. The fluoride will be off until pipes and control systems can be replaced.
Dentist Bill Osmunson, attorneys James Robert Deal and Gerald Steel, and Fluoride-Class-Action are urging Everett not to restart fluoridation without first holding hearings regarding the safety and effectiveness of the industrial grade fluoridation materials used.
See http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases for the latest version of this press release and to make it easier to follow hyperlinks.
Primary contact person: James Robert Deal, 425-771-1110, James@Fluoride-Class-Action.com.
Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH, says:
The industrial grade silicofluoride added to our water slowly harms us all. But protecting infants and fetuses is my primary concern. They are hurt the most and the quickest.
The fetus is most vulnerable because the placenta does not protect the fetus from fluoride. However, the mammary glands block most fluoride, and so mother’s milk contains almost no fluoride. Nature protects the infant from fluoride, but fluoridated water used to make infant formula gives the infant hundreds of times more fluoride than nature intended. The infant’s kidneys are under-developed and cannot excrete fluoride well. Twenty-five human studies, unrefuted and unchallenged, have reported lower intelligence, especially cognitive functioning, and triple the mental retardation rate in fluoridated areas or with increased fluoride serum concentration. We are dumbing down our children.
Studies find lower brain weight and increased brain defects in fluoridated areas. Dental fluorosis can be costly to repair, however, brain damage is far more costly.
The CDC reports 41 percent of our children now have dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride ingestion during the development of the teeth. Many have been ingesting too much fluoride from many sources for decades.
Fluoride researchers consider fluoride may have some benefit for caries reduction topically, but a growing number consider systemic intake of fluoride has little if any benefit. Most European Dental Associations no longer recommend fluoride supplements.
The FDA and the Washington Board of Pharmacy agree that fluoride when used allegedly to prevent dental caries meets the definition of a drug. Although it is an unapproved drug, its administration is medical treatment. Informed consent before treatment is a fundamental principle of law, from the Nurenburg Code to modern medical treatment standards. Administering it without prior consent is a violation of ethics and freedom of choice.
At a minimum, we should join the New Hampshire House of Representatives, which just voted by a 227 vote margin to require water districts to provide a notice on water bills that the fluoridated water should not be used to make infant formula.
If a person wants to ingest fluoride they can simply disregard the FDA warning on the toothpaste tube and swallow a pea size amount. Fluoridated toothpaste is cheaper than a fluoridation program. However, the FDA has good science and solid footing to caution people not to swallow toothpaste.
I supported fluoridation for 25 years – until I studied both sides of the science. I am convinced that someday fluoridation will be considered one of public health’s greatest blunders .
Dr. Osmunson, DDS, MPH, is the president of Washington Action for Safe Water. He is a cosmetic dentist practicing in Bellevue and Portland. Before becoming a dentist, he worked as a professional in public health. Contact Dr. Osmunson at 425-466-0100, bill@washingtonsafewater.com
Washington Action for Safe Water is a non-profit association which focuses on educating city councils, the Washington Board of Health, and Governor Gregoire on all aspects of safe and clean water.
James Robert Deal, Lynnwood attorney and president of Fluoride Class Action, says:
The industrial grade fluorosilicic acid which Everett uses to fluoridate fails to meet legal standards, and so it is illegal to fluoridate with it.
Washington law, WAC 246-290-220(3), says that
any treatment chemicals … added to water intended for potable use must comply with ANSI/NSF Standard 60.
What does NSF 60 say? The NSF web site and the NSF Standard for Drinking Water Additives, say:
Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and … to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … The NSF standard requires … assays of genetic toxicity, … reproductive toxicity, … chronic toxicity … endocrine disruption …. The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … [among others] … product manufacturing representatives.
However, NSF officials have admitted, one of them under oath, that toxicological studies are not being done.
(See transcript of California deposition (http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/appendix-e-stan-hazen-deposition1.pdf, pages 22, 67).
Thus fluoridation materials do not “comply” with NSF 60.
Fluoridation may only be done with fluoridation materials which “comply” with NSF 60. The fluoride Everett uses does not comply with NSF 60. Therefore, fluoridation with it is illegal.
Deal says:
Our safe water groups have explained this to the Everett City Council on a dozen occasions since July. Some council members admit they drink bottled water. A video of my explanation to the City Council is posted on the City’s web site, however the ending, in which I state that fluoridation with these materials is illegal, was cut off.
The Everett City Council is trying very hard to ignore this issue, but I think they eventually will come around. The industrial grade silicofluoride is poisoning them too – and their children and grandchildren.
Deal says:
On the litigation front, water districts should take heed of the fluoridation lawsuits which have been filed in federal courts in California, Maryland, and in the Washington courts.
Three safe water groups presented their case to the Seattle City Attorney’s office on January 9.
Fluoride Class Action has written to Jenny Durkin, US Attorney in Seattle, asking her to bring appropriate action to stop these violations of law. See http://fluoride-class-action.com/seattle/us-attorney.
Before a person is administered a drug or a medical treatment, he has a right to be informed and to give or refuse to give his consent. Drinking water fluoridation violates this principal of law and medical ethics.
Fluoride Class Action is an informal group of attorneys and scientists from far and wide who share ideas and work together to warn utility districts of their potential liability if they continue to add industrial grade fluoride to drinking water. Fluoride Class Action posts information at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com.
Attorney Deal is the president of Fluoride Class Action. He can be contacted at 425-771-1110, James@JamesRobertDeal.com.
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, PhD says:
Drinking fluoride does not improve tooth health or structure. Fluoride incorporates into bone irreversibly, where it accumulates lifetime, making bone harder but more subject to fracture. The extent of fluoride uptake depends on the fluoride level and water hardness. Northwest snowmelt water is extremely soft, that is low in minerals, and so total fluoride uptake is greater.
After just a few years consuming water containing 1 ppm fluoride, bone can be 3,000 ppm, and it continues to increase. Fluorosis of bone can make hip fracture more likely. Once the fluoride is in bone and teeth, it is virtually impossible to remove. Fluoride makes all bones heavier and more brittle. Fluoride binds with calcium in bones and organs throughout the body.
Fluoride, particularly industrial silicofluoride, is a long term chronic poison for adults. It is a short-term acute poison for babies and for fetuses, if the mother is consuming fluoride. Fluoride crosses the placental barrier. Their cells of fetuses and infants are still dividing. Fluoride interrupts and inhibits enzymatic action. It denatures proteins. It is an anticholinesterase inhibitor. It damages brain tissue and reduces IQ while the fetus is still in the womb. There is no safe level of fluoride in drinking water. There is no level of fluoride in drinking water that is low enough to prevent bone accumulation. Fluoride added into water is not naturally occurring calcium fluoride, but instead is a synthetic industrial compound that is also contaminated with lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and a host of other toxins included with the silicofluoride.
Applying fluoride to teeth as toothpaste or concentrated gel does not strengthen teeth. The fluoride in toothpaste forms calcium fluoride globules on teeth surfaces, and as soon as we eat or drinking anything acidic, the fluoride washes off, and it is swallowed. We are eating our tooth paste and getting a big dose of fluoride as we do.
Fluoridated toothpaste should be sold by prescription only and be kept away from children. Too many children lock themselves in the bathroom and eat toothpaste as if it were ice cream and become permanently hypersensitized.
The body needs no fluoride whatsoever because fluoride is not a mineral nutrient and has no physiological fundtion. The absence of fluoride does not produce cavities and there is nothing deficient about the pristine snowmelt water of the Northwest.
Fluoridation is a myth, just like tetraethyl lead, asbestos, tobacco, and DDT. The body needs no fluoride whatsoever. The less fluoride we consume the better.
Dr. Sauerheber says:
Silicofluoride treatment of water has been found to leach lead from pipes and fittings that contain it. Seattle schools and all older buildings have a lead problem. When fluoridation stops, blood lead levels drop. Recent data from the VA Healthcare Center of Los Angeles prove with PET scans that systemic fluoride from the bloodstream incorporates into atherosclerotic plaque in coronary arteries and the aorta in patients with cardiovascular disease, the nation’s leading disease.
Do not bathe infants in fluoridated water. Their skin is soft and the keratin layer has not built up, and so fluoride penetrates their skin.
Fluoridation supporters rely mostly on endorsements and not scientific documentation. They say the EPA supports fluoridation, but it is only the EPA administrators who do. EPA scientists, represented by the EPA Union strongly oppose fluoridation and do so based on the science. Other respected scientists oppose this strange practice. Dr. Paul Connett has written the definitive work on the subject entitled The Case Against Fluoridation, which I highly recommend. Thousands of doctors, nurses, PhDs, dentists and other professionals have stated opposition to fluoridation.
Dr. Richard Sauerheber can be contacted at (760) 402-1173, richsauerheb@hotmail.com. He has a Ph.D. in chemistry and teaches at Palomar College in San Diego. He has published numerous peer reviewed articles in scientific journals.
Deal says:
Members of our two groups toured the water treatment facility at Sultan. The hydrogen fluoride molecule is tiny and neutral in charge and slips through tiny cracks in aging CPVC pipe. The window in the door into the building was frosted with acidic etchings from hydrogen fluoride in the air.
The fluoridation building has powerful fans that constantly suck air up and out through vents on the roof of the building. Nevertheless, there was enough hydrogen fluoride in the air to make me dizzy, and I had to leave the building right away.
Not only is the interior of the fluoridation building vented, the three fluoride tanks themselves are vented – directly onto the roof. Hydrogen fluoride is constantly escaping into the air above the building.
Contact Everett Water Processing at 425-257-8878 for more information or to arrange a tour.
Attorney and engineer Gerald Steel of Olympia says:
The Washington State Supreme Court is considering our appeal that argues that fluoridation products are drugs and prescription drugs that are unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration and are therefore being illegally marketed. It would be wise for Everett to put fluoridation on hold until the Court rules on this issue. Distribution of fluoridation products and fluoridation products in public drinking water may be a criminal offense.
Gerald Steel is an attorney and professional engineer. He is the lead attorney in a suit against the City of Port Angeles and the City of Forks that requests that their fluoridation products be seized for being unapproved drugs. Contact him at 360-867-1166, GeraldSteel@Yahoo.com.
Deal says:
Regarding the potential for criminal liability, see the letter the FDC wrote to one vendor who was making unsubstantiated health claims regarding a product as well as this letter to the US Attorney in Seattle.
See http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases for the latest version of this press release.
End
Other Press Releases:
Showdown at Seattle City Hall – October 31, 2011
A Press Release for Candidates – November 5, 2011
Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Palomar Community College
1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069
E-mail: richsauerheb@hotmail.com Phone: 760-402-1173
February 10, 2012
Department of Health and Human ServicesDear FDA Project Reviewers,
I write this letter in support of my previous petition to ban the addition of synthetic industrial fluoride compounds into public drinking water supplies, original petition FDA-2007-P-0346, formerly 2007P-0400. The letter contains three principle sections: I. Cardiovascular effects of ingested industrial fluorides and the recent data for the Veterans’ Administration Healthcare System, Los Angeles indicating fluoride preferentially incorporates into atherosclerotic plaque and diseased heart tissue. II. A discussion of the withdrawal of a fluosilicic acid chemical supplier from the city of Selmer, Tennessee that could not provide data demonstrating either caries reduction or safety of use in the infirmed for consumers who ingest the chemical they provided. III. Direct communications with the U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water, Region 9, San Francisco proving that EPA has no intention of regulating the procedures or chemicals used to treat humans with industrial fluoride compounds to be taken internally through public water supplies, which confirms the Petition for Reconsideration 2010 that the FDA, not the EPA, is exclusively in charge of regulating/prohibiting the dissemination of fluoride compounds to be taken internally through ingestion by citizens in the U.S.
I. Cardiovascular Effects of Systemic Industrial Fluoride.
The National Research Council 2006 Report [1] avoided discussion of the effects of industrial fluoride ingestion on cardiovascular function because comparatively so much more data existed for review on other organ systems (personal communication with Dr. K. Thiessen, coauthor of NRC Report). This is most unfortunate, since the mechanism of acute high level fluoride toxicity is known to be heart block due to inhibition of calcium ion mobility and related sequelae [2], the cause of death in the Nation’s worst water fluoride disaster in Hooper Bay, Alaska (see original petition). Further, at lower, intermediate blood levels of fluoride, research animals during long-term consumption develop heart muscle degradation and weakening [3]. Finally, for ‘low’ fluoride levels in consumers in U.S. treated cities, 0.2 ppm in blood, it has been long known that heart attack incidence increases in fluoridated cities. In Newburg, N.Y., heart attack incidence increased 1.7 fold after fluoridation began, which exceed the National average for the first time in city history, far in excess of incidence in the control city of non-fluoridated Kingston [5].
Fluoride in soft water is assimilated more than from hard water, and a clear correlation between percent of fluoridated water districts and heart attack incidence for the 50 U.S. States [4] is even more significant for those States in soft water regions [2]. Dr. A.L. Miller submitted data to the U.S. Congress regarding the increased incidence of cardiovascular deaths after fluoridation of Newburgh, N.Y. and Antigo, Wisconsin [5]. Electrocardiogram abnormal heart rhythms and reduced myocardial function are found in an unusually large percentage of patients having dental tooth fluorosis [6]. This is supported by recent studies indicating that patients with chronic fluorosis have detectably decreased aortic elasticity and left ventricular function [7, 8].
Although I do not support the injection of any fluoride compound into humans for any purpose, note that the study enclosed below, approved and conducted on heart disease victims for various assessment purposes, proves fluoride preferentially incorporates into damaged heart tissue in cardiac patients and into coronary and femoral arteries and aorta in these patients. The study was conducted at the VA Health Care System in Los Angeles, CA, published in Nuclear Medicine Communications, 2011 [9]. There is no doubt that systemic fluoride incorporates directly and selectively into heart tissue and various major arteries of patients who had suffered previous heart conditions, including coronary arteries, the aorta and the leg femoral artery as well where calcium has long been known to accumulate during atherosclerosis. The incorporation of fluoride, fully expected as a toxic calcium chelator, was directly observed by Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans after injection of radioactive fluoride as sodium fluoride.
The precise concentration in the bloodstream during the incorporation was not listed, but could be calculated by contacting the authors to determine the specific activity of the isotope employed. Acute heart attack was obviously not induced by the injections, so the concentration was a tolerable level that did not exceed the known solubility for calcium fluoride. At concentrations that exist in U.S. citizens in fluoridated cities, the incorporation occurs by an ion exchange mechanism, similar to that in bone where fluoride binds permanently to calcium even below the Ksp for the formed precipitate. This point is not opposed by fluoridation proponents (see attached graph from the fluoride-promoting textbook by Brun indicating bone calcium levels in fluoridated cities after lifetime accumulation).
Fluoride is a toxic calcium chelator (see original petition) and thus incorporates into tissue where calcium is enriched, including calcium-rich atherosclerotic plaque. The authors of the VA study suggested that blood fluoride is expected to increase pathologic risk in patients with cardiovascular disease and that fluoride is a component feature of atherosclerosis. To be more accurate, fluoride itself is not a normal body component and its presence is thus an aberration. Atherosclerosis in the absence of fluoride is composed chiefly of cholesterol, calcium and fatty acids in the original fatty streak. These are normal constituents of the bloodstream and are always components of atherosclerotic plaque. Fluoride when present, not a normal body component, incorporates as an abnormal ingredient.
These charges are extremely serious. The presumption that ‘fluoridation’ is safe is based on the fact that populations with normal health, regularly drinking fluoridated water in the U.S., can live full lives to a reasonably long age. However, Dr. Albert Schatz cautioned against this mistaken assertion, since it is not the healthy with good nutrition who are noticeably most susceptible to ingestion of industrial fluorides, but rather the undernourished and infirmed who are. Specifically, the population of American citizens who suffer with atherosclerosis or cardiovascular disease are at increased risk from continuous exposure to industrial fluoride taken internally to elevate the blood fluoride level to 0.2 ppm (or higher in soft water cities). Unusual stress in heart patients is expected to be more dangerous when all organs are invested with continuous levels of the fluoride ion where it does not belong. Atherosclerosis is still considered to be the most common underlying cause of heart disease in the U.S., particularly in cases of angina pectoris substernal chest pain due to coronary artery reduced blood flow and ischemia.
Incorporation of fluoride into atherosclerotic plaque is an insidious and unnecessary abnormality that complicates atherosclerosis, the most widespread disease entity in the U.S. Consumption of industrial fluorides from public drinking water is contraindicated in humans afflicted with either atheroscelerosis or cardiovascular disease. Much recent data, not known when the idea of ‘systemic fluoridation’ was unveiled, now prompts the elimination of industrial fluoride compounds from being intentionally injected further into public water supplies. Cardiovascular disease remains the Nation’s leading killer, and regulation and enforcement is regarded as immediately necessary.
The widespread treatment of water with industrial fluoride compounds, in a worthless attempt to decrease dental caries through internal ingestion of fluoride ion, is not the fault of the U.S. FDA. FDA decreed in 1963 that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient and that its addition into public water supplies constitutes an uncontrolled use of a non-FDA-approved drug where dosage could not ever be regulated. Fluoridation is the fault of zealots who have routinely and completely ignored FDA statements on the matter, and the FDA is commended for not approving the ingestion of fluoride compounds and for only allowing ingestion by prescription in non-fluoridated cities. It is now time to impose regulations since currently no Federal agency assumes responsibility for the dissemination into public water supplies.
Please understand that there is no such action that can be simply called ‘fluoridation’. Fluoride cannot exist without the presence of other elements. Since 1939 when the original false correlation was made that fluoride, rather than the accompanying, responsible calcium ion, reduced teeth caries, fluoridation zealots have switched from using calcium fluoride (originally promoted as a fluoridation agent by the CDC) to sodium fluoride and then to the cheaper fluosilicic acid fluoride. The Safe Drinking Water Act was written to prevent using public water supplies as a medium in which to disseminate any fluorides for human ingestion, but yet fluoridation promoters have sidestepped the Act by adding tacked-on regulations along the way since 1974, designed to make allowances for ill-defined ‘fluoridation’. Fluosilicic acid supplies have now become depleted, and the next fluoride compound to be proposed to be used as source material will again be fully expected by promoters to go unnoticed and unregulated by any Federal agency.
It is simple to claim that ‘fluoridation’ is natural—simply use an agent that is known to be a natural ingredient in the earth’s crust, such as sodium, silicon, lithium, aluminum or arsenic. The first two ingredients have already been in use for ‘fluoridation’, the former for over 69 years in the U.S. Any proposed use of lithium fluoride, aluminum fluoride or arsenic fluoride for water ‘fluoridation’ could also again be argued to be ‘natural’, fully expecting complete lack of Federal agency repudiation or a ban as long as the MCL for the extra component is not exceeded. The U.S has already entered down this slippery slope by ‘fluoridating’ water supplies with toxic industrial sodium fluoride and then with toxic hazardous waste fluosilicic acid, marketed to water districts and State public health departments as a water purifying agent with dental caries benefit as an ingestible, the substitute ingredient argued by the CDC as being ‘identical’ to natural calcium fluoride and thus deserving of the continued support and proclamation from the U.S. Surgeon General as the ‘greatest public health achievement of the 20th century’. How long this scheme continues is entirely up to the FDA, and no one else.
Sincerely,
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
References:
Nuclear Medicine Communications:
January 2012 – Volume 33 – Issue 1 – p 14–20
doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834c187e
Original Articles
Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease
Li, Yuxina; Berenji, Gholam R.a; Shaba, Wisam F.a; Tafti, Bashira; Yevdayev, Ellaa; Dadparvar, Siminb
Author Information
aVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
bUniversity PA Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Correspondence to Dr Gholam R. Berenji, MD, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Nuclear Medicine Service (115), 11301 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA Tel: +1 310 268 3583; fax: +1 310 268 4916; e-mail: Gholam.Berenji@va.gov
Received June 21, 2011
Accepted August 18, 2011
Abstract
Objective: The feasibility of a fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan for imaging atherosclerosis has not been well documented. The purpose of this study was to assess fluoride uptake of vascular calcification in various major arteries, including coronary arteries.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the imaging data and cardiovascular history of 61 patients who received whole-body sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT studies at our institution from 2009 to 2010. Fluoride uptake and calcification in major arteries, including coronary arteries, were analyzed by both visual assessment and standardized uptake value measurement.
Results: Fluoride uptake in vascular walls was demonstrated in 361 sites of 54 (96%) patients, whereas calcification was observed in 317 sites of 49 (88%) patients. Significant correlation between fluoride uptake and calcification was observed in most of the arterial walls, except in those of the abdominal aorta. Fluoride uptake in coronary arteries was demonstrated in 28 (46%) patients and coronary calcifications were observed in 34 (56%) patients. There was significant correlation between history of cardiovascular events and presence of fluoride uptake in coronary arteries. The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events.
Conclusion: sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT might be useful in the evaluation of the atherosclerotic process in major arteries, including coronary arteries. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.
Introduction
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the world 1. The major pathophysiologic change of cardiovascular disease is atherosclerosis in critical arteries. Atherosclerosis is a slow, progressive, and cumulative process that results in atheromatous plaque formation in vascular walls and eventually leads to narrowing of the arterial lumen, occlusion, or aneurysm formation. The development of atherosclerotic plaque is characterized by subendothelial fatty material accumulation, a chronic inflammatory process, and vascular calcification 2,3. To predict and prevent any deadly cardiovascular events, extensive studies have been conducted to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular disease. Over the past decade, many cardiovascular studies focused on the calcification process in atherosclerosis 4–7.
Calcification in atherosclerosis occurs through an active process that resembles bone formation and is controlled by complex enzymatic and cellular pathways 8,9. Coronary artery calcification parallels atherosclerosis progress and is strongly and linearly correlated with the total atherosclerotic burden 10. Coronary calcification can be measured by computed tomography (CT) studies and is one of the most important predictors of future cardiovascular events. The level of coronary artery calcium can also help to reclassify asymptomatic individuals into high-risk or low-risk categories 4. Currently, sodium [18F]fluoride positron emission tomography (PET)/CT is the most sensitive imaging modality to detect active bone formation 11. Recently, Derlin et al. 12 reported the feasibility of sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT for imaging atherosclerotic calcification in major arteries, including carotid, aorta, iliac, and femoral arteries. They also found that the mineral deposition in the carotid plaque detected by sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT significantly correlates with atherogenic risk factors 13. Although atherosclerosis is a systemic disease, and evaluation of vascular calcification may potentially predict cardiovascular events, studies have shown that direct assessment of coronary arteries is superior to surrogate imaging for evaluating the risk of cardiovascular events 14. Some recent studies have demonstrated that evaluation of coronary arteries by PET is feasible 15–22. Most of these studies investigated fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in coronary arteries. However, the clinical significance of [18F]fluoride uptake in coronary arteries has not been documented.
In this study, we evaluated sodium [18F]fluoride uptake in major arteries, including coronary arteries, in 61 patients. The relationship between [18F]fluoride uptake and cardiovascular history and/or multiple risk factors was also evaluated.
Materials and methods
This study has been approved by the institutional review board of the Greater Los Angeles VA Healthcare System.
Patients
We retrospectively reviewed sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT bone studies conducted at Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System from April 2009 to June 2010. There were 58 male patients and three female patients. Detailed clinical histories and the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking history, obesity, and history of cardiovascular events, were obtained for all patients. The clinical characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Image Tools
Positron emission tomography/computed tomography protocols and imaging reconstruction
PET/CT scans were performed using a Philips Gemini TF 64-channel time-of-flight PET/CT scanner (Philips Healthcare, Andover, Massachusetts, USA) with spatial resolution of 4.5 mm at West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. Sodium [18F]fluoride was injected intravenously at a dose of 10±2 mCi (370±74 MBq). Participants were comfortably seated in a private, quiet, cozy room. Forty minutes after the injection, patients were subjected to a low-dose CT scan of the whole body without contrast at 50 mA, 120 kVp, 0.5 s/rotation, a pitch of covering 0.83 mm, and a slice thickness of 5 mm 23,24. The subsequent PET data were acquired continuously for 90 s and at 180 mm per bed position with 50% overlap between consecutive bed positions using a matrix of 140×140, followed by reconstruction corrected for attenuation using low-dose CT scans. No cardiac or respiratory gating was performed.
Imaging and statistical analyses
CT and PET images were coregistered by the Philips Extended Brilliance workstation (Philips Healthcare). CT, PET, and fused PET/CT images were evaluated visually and semiquantitatively simultaneously using the same workstation. All images were analyzed by two independent nuclear medicine physicians blinded to all patients’ clinical information. Inter-reader reproducibility was excellent and was evaluated using an intraclass correlation coefficient (0.89). Vascular calcification was identified as positive on CT images if the target was visually detectable with a greater than 130 Hounsfield units. CT-attenuated PET images were evaluated for fluoride uptake in major arteries. Background activity was based on the standardized uptake value (SUV) of the blood pool, which was calculated from the mean SUVs of three circular regions of interest (ROIs) placed in the left atrium, mid lumen of the aortic arch, and abdominal aorta at the level of the celiac trunk on axial images. The sizes of ROIs were 2 cm in diameter for the left atrium and 1 cm for the aortic arch and the abdominal aorta. Maximum SUVs (SUVmax) from target arteries were obtained by manually placing an individual circular ROI of 1 cm diameter in the target artery wall. All three orthogonal images were assessed for focal lesions in major arteries with an increased fluoride uptake. Positive fluoride uptake was identified if the target lesion was visually detectable with a greater than or equal to 1.5 target-to-background ratio in all three orthogonal image planes. For either CT or PET evaluation, the arterial territory was categorized as positive if at least one lesion was detected and agreed upon by both readers. The percentages of positive studies on both CT and PET of each arterial territory were calculated. Correlation between fluoride uptake and CT calcification was analyzed by Fisher’s exact test. Correlation of PET results and the number of cardiovascular risk factors were analyzed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Significance was defined as P value of less than 0.05 in two-tailed studies.
Results
Patients’ age and reasons for sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT imaging are summarized in Table 1. Most patients were men with a median age of 66 years (27–91 years). The majority of patients (69%) had more than one risk factor for coronary artery disease.
Arterial sodium [18F]fluoride uptake and calcification
Arterial wall sodium [18F]fluoride uptake and calcification were evaluated in major arteries, including carotid arteries, the thoracic ascending (including aortic arch) aorta, the thoracic descending aorta, the abdominal aorta, femoral arteries, and major branches of coronary arteries. Iliac arteries were not evaluated because of frequently observed urinary and occasional bowel uptake in the pelvis, which interferes with the accurate assessment of iliac vessels. For coronary arteries, four major branches were evaluated. An example of fluoride uptake in femoral arteries is shown in Fig. 1. Orthogonal views of fluoride uptake in the aorta and coronary arteries are shown in Figs 2 and 3.
| Fig. 1 Image Tools |
Fig. 2 Image Tools |
Fig. 3 Image Tools |
Both fluoride uptake and calcification were common in major arteries as summarized in Table 2. In general, fluoride uptakes in vascular walls were observed in 361 vascular territories of 59 (97%) patients, and calcifications were observed in 317 vascular territories of 49 (88%) patients. Only two patients did not demonstrate fluoride uptake in any of the vasculatures (one patient aged 27 and one aged 61). In thoracic aortas, the abdominal aorta, and femoral arteries, fluoride uptake was observed more frequently compared with calcification. In contrast, calcification was more common than fluoride uptake in carotid and coronary arteries (Table 2). Except for the abdominal aorta, fluoride uptake and calcification were significantly correlated in the same vascular territories, as evaluated by Fisher’s exact test. It should be noted that the fluoride uptake and calcification were not necessarily overlapped in the exact same anatomic locations. At calcification sites that did not demonstrate prominent overlapping fluoride uptake, fluoride uptake was frequently observed in the adjacent area within the same arterial territories (Fig. 2).
Table 2
Image Tools
Relationship between coronary fluoride uptake and cardiovascular risk factors
The coronary arteries were also investigated for fluoride uptake. Four major branches of coronary arteries, including left main artery (LMA), left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCA), and right coronary arteriy (RCA) were evaluated. Fluoride uptake was more frequently observed in the LAD and LCAs. A similar pattern was also identified in coronary artery calcification. In each individual coronary branch, calcification was more frequently observed than fluoride uptake (Table 2). Among 10 patients who had significant three-vessel coronary calcifications, 80% demonstrated fluoride uptake in at least one coronary branch (data not shown).
Cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking history, and history of coronary artery disease were reviewed in all patients (Table 3). The majority of the patients (69%) had more than one cardiovascular risk factor; however, neither the individual cardiovascular risk factor nor the number of risk factors was significantly correlated with coronary fluoride uptake (Table 3). Nine patients had a history of cardiovascular events. Among them, eight demonstrated identifiable coronary fluoride uptake. There was significant correlation between coronary calcification and fluoride uptake in this group evaluated by Fisher’s exact test (Table 3). All nine patients also demonstrated coronary calcification on CT images. We also compared the SUVmax in coronary arteries between patients with and without a history of cardiovascular events. The average coronary SUVmax in patients with a history of cardiovascular events was 1.70, significantly higher than 1.39 for patients without a history of cardiovascular events (P=0.029, two-tailed Student’s t-test). No correlation was observed between cardiovascular risk factors and fluoride uptake in other vascular territories (noncoronary).
Table 3
Image Tools
Discussion
Vascular calcification, in particular coronary calcification, has been shown to predict vascular events 25–27. Recent utilization of multidetector CT has made the assessment of coronary calcium feasible and reproducible 7,28. However, CT can only evaluate structural change, which usually represents later stages of the disease’s process. Given the assumption that fluoride uptake represents dynamic atherosclerotic calcification, we would expect that fluoride uptake occurs at the stage before the formation of detectable calcium deposition. Consistent with this theory, Derlin et al. 12 reported that only 12% of the calcification sites demonstrated prominent overlapping fluoride uptake, whereas 12% of fluoride-positive lesions did not show concordant calcification. In our study, fluoride uptake and CT calcification are significantly correlated in the same arterial territories, except in the abdominal aorta. This is because of the extremely high positive rate (97%, only one patient demonstrated negative uptake) for fluoride uptake in the abdominal aorta. Fluoride uptake either overlaps with calcification or locates adjacent to the detectable calcium deposits, suggesting that fluoride uptake and detectable calcification represent different stages of the atherosclerotic process.
In large arteries, such as the thoracic aorta, abdominal aorta, and femoral arteries, fluoride uptake is more commonly observed than calcification. This finding is different from results published by Derlin et al. 12, which demonstrated that fluoride uptake is less frequently observed than calcification in all major arteries. The discrepancy may be due to different PET/CT scanners. In our study, we used a time-of-flight PET/CT scanner with better spatial resolution (4.5 mm vs. 8 mm) and higher sensitivity. In addition, differences in patient populations may also contribute to the discrepancy. Most of our patients were older male veterans with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Consistent with this, our data demonstrated notably higher incidents of calcification compared with the data published by Derlin et al. 12. Recently, they also reported that fluoride uptake in carotid arteries significantly correlated with cardiovascular risk factors. We found that 43 (right) and 48% (left) of patients have carotid calcifications, whereas 34 (right) and 38% (left) of patients have fluoride uptake, compared with 32 (right) and 37% (left) with calcification and 25 (right) and 28% (left) with fluoride uptake according to the results from Derlin et al. 13. However, we did not observe any correlation between carotid fluoride uptake and cardiovascular risk factors, probably because of the limited number of patients in our study.
In contrast to the results of the aorta and femoral arteries, fluoride uptake was less commonly observed than calcification in coronary arteries. This phenomenon could be due to the following reasons: (a) the limited spatial resolution of PET reduces the sensitivity to detect fluoride uptake in smaller arteries; (b) the combination of cardiac and respiratory motions further reduces the sensitivity of PET in the evaluation of coronary arteries; (c) the proximal coronary arteries are surrounded by vascular structures that are highly susceptible to calcification. These include aorta, pulmonary artery, and heart valves. All these structures may affect the interpretation of fluoride uptake in coronary arteries; and (d) the partial volume effect on the small size of the ROIs is also a possible reason.
Coronary motion is greatest in the RCA, followed by circumflex coronary artery, LAD, and LMA in descending order 29. Our study demonstrated that fluoride uptake was more frequently observed in LAD and circumflex coronary artery than in the RCA and LMA. Motion artifact reduces the sensitivity to detect fluoride uptake in the RCA. The short length of LMA and its short distance to the aorta, which frequently demonstrates fluoride uptake, may attribute to the low frequency of fluoride uptake in the LMA. Despite the feasibility of fluoride PET evaluation of coronary calcification, coronary imaging with fluoride PET/CT remains challenging because of small artery size, motion artifact, and interference of surrounding vasculature calcifications. All of these factors will potentially cause either false-negative or false-positive results. The recent development of cardiac–respiratory gating technology in PET scans may increase the accuracy of coronary imaging 30–32. In addition to the technical difficulties in evaluating coronary arteries, the limited number of patients and the unvarying nature of the patient population in this study may be skewed and may not apply to the general population.
We found that fluoride uptake in coronary arteries is significantly correlated with a patient’s history of cardiovascular events, and the uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than that in patients without cardiovascular events. These results further support the fact that higher fluoride uptake in coronary arteries indicates increased cardiovascular risk. Recently, several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of FDG-PET/CT in detecting plaque inflammation in coronary arteries 15–22. Nevertheless, fluoride PET/CT detects active mineral deposition, which represents the distinct pathophysiologic process of atherosclerosis. Derlin et al. 33 reported that uptake of FDG and sodium fluoride in vessel wall alterations was rarely coincident, supporting the suggestion that these two studies evaluate different functional and morphologic changes of the atherosclerotic process. The FDG uptake and fluoride uptake of atherosclerotic plaques could have complementary roles in evaluating the cardiovascular risk of patients. The combination of sodium [18F]fluoride PET and CT is a promising imaging modality that provides both metabolic and anatomic information in evaluating vascular calcification. However, large-scale studies are needed to evaluate the clinical significance of fluoride PET/CT for imaging atherosclerosis.
Conclusion
Our study demonstrates that vascular calcification and fluoride uptake are significantly correlated in the same arterial territory, although not necessarily overlapping in the same anatomic locations. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Combined anatomic and metabolic imaging with sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT offers a promising, noninvasive method to evaluate atherosclerosis.
1. Breslow JL. Cardiovascular disease burden increases, NIH funding decreases. Nat Med. 1997;3:600–601
2. Libby P, Ridker PM, Maseri A. Inflammation and atherosclerosis. Circulation. 2002;105:1135–1143
3. Trion A, van der Laarse A. Vascular smooth muscle cells and calcification in atherosclerosis. Am Heart J. 2004;147:808–814
4. Alexopoulos N, Raggi P. Calcification in atherosclerosis. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2009;6:681–688
5. Detrano R, Guerci AD, Carr JJ, Bild DE, Burke G, Folsom AR, et al. Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic groups. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1336–1345
6. Lakoski SG, Greenland P, Wong ND, Schreiner PJ, Herrington DM, Kronmal RA, et al. Coronary artery calcium scores and risk for cardiovascular events in women classified as ‘low risk’ based on Framingham risk score: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA). Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2437–2442
7. Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS, Carr JJ, Goldin JG, Greenland P, et al. Assessment of coronary artery disease by cardiac computed tomography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 2006;114:1761–1791
8. Johnson RC, Leopold JA, Loscalzo J. Vascular calcification: pathobiological mechanisms and clinical implications. Circ Res. 2006;99:1044–1059
9. Doherty TM, Fitzpatrick LA, Inoue D, Qiao JH, Fishbein MC, Detrano RC, et al. Molecular, endocrine, and genetic mechanisms of arterial calcification. Endocr Rev. 2004;25:629–672
10. Rumberger JA, Simons DB, Fitzpatrick LA, Sheedy PF, Schwartz RS. Coronary artery calcium area by electron-beam computed tomography and coronary atherosclerotic plaque area: a histopathologic correlative study. Circulation. 1995;92:2157–2162
11. Grant FD, Fahey FH, Packard AB, Davis RT, Alavi A, Treves ST. Skeletal PET with 18 F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:68–78
12. Derlin T, Richter U, Bannas P, Begemann P, Buchert R, Mester J, et al. Feasibility of 18 F-sodium fluoride PET/CT for imaging of atherosclerotic plaque. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:862–865
13. Derlin T, Wisotzki C, Richter U, Apostolova I, Bannas P, Weber C, et al. In vivo imaging of mineral deposition in carotid plaque using 18 F-sodium fluoride PET/CT: correlation with atherogenic risk factors. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:362–368
14. Folsom AR, Kronmal RA, Detrano RC, O’Leary DH, Bild DE, Bluemke DA, et al. Coronary artery calcification compared with carotid intima-media thickness in the prediction of cardiovascular disease incidence: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1333–1339
15. Dunphy MP, Freiman A, Larson SM, Strauss HW. Association of vascular 18 F-FDG uptake with vascular calcification. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1278–1284
16. Williams G, Kolodny GM. Retrospective study of coronary uptake of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose in association with calcification and coronary artery disease: a preliminary study. Nucl Med Commun. 2009;30:287–291
17. Paulmier B, Duet M, Khayat R, Pierquet-Ghazzar N, Laissy JP, Maunoury C, et al. Arterial wall uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose on PET imaging in stable cancer disease patients indicates higher risk for cardiovascular events. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:209–217
18. Alexanderson E, Slomka P, Cheng V, Meave A, Saldana Y, Garcia-Rojas L, et al. Fusion of positron emission tomography and coronary computed tomographic angiography identifies fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the left main coronary artery soft plaque. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:841–843
19. Rogers IS, Nasir K, Figueroa AL, Cury RC, Hoffmann U, Vermylen DA, et al. Feasibility of FDG imaging of the coronary arteries: comparison between acute coronary syndrome and stable angina. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:388–397
20. Wykrzykowska J, Lehman S, Williams G, Parker JA, Palmer MR, Varkey S, et al. Imaging of inflamed and vulnerable plaque in coronary arteries with 18 F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suppression of myocardial uptake using a low-carbohydrate, high-fat preparation. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:563–568
21. Ceriani L, Oberson M, Marone C, Gallino A, Giovanella L. F-18 FDG PET-CT imaging in the care-management of a patient with pan-aortitis and coronary involvement. Clin Nucl Med. 2007;32:562–564
22. Chen W, Dilsizian V. (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging of coronary atherosclerosis and plaque inflammation. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2010;12:179–184
23. Segall G, Delbeke D, Stabin MG, Even-Sapir E, Fair J, Sajdak R, et al. SNM practice guideline for sodium 18 F-fluoride PET/CT bone scans 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2010;32:1813–1820
24. Hawkins RA, Choi Y, Huang SC, Hoh CK, Dahlbom M, Schiepers C, et al. Evaluation of the skeletal kinetics of fluorine-18-fluoride ion with PET. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:633–642
25. Wang L, Jerosch-Herold M, Jacobs DR Jr, Shahar E, Detrano R, Folsom AR. Coronary artery calcification and myocardial perfusion in asymptomatic adults: the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1018–1026
26. Raggi P, Callister TQ, Cooil B, He ZX, Lippolis NJ, Russo DJ, et al. Identification of patients at increased risk of first unheralded acute myocardial infarction by electron-beam computed tomography. Circulation. 2000;101:850–855
27. Raggi P, Cooil B, Callister TQ. Use of electron beam tomography data to develop models for prediction of hard coronary events. Am Heart J. 2001;141:375–382
28. McCollough CH, Ulzheimer S, Halliburton SS, Shanneik K, White RD, Kalender WA. Coronary artery calcium: a multi-institutional, multimanufacturer international standard for quantification at cardiac CT. Radiology. 2007;243:527–538
29. Lu B, Mao SS, Zhuang N, Bakhsheshi H, Yamamoto H, Takasu J, et al. Coronary artery motion during the cardiac cycle and optimal ECG triggering for coronary artery imaging. Invest Radiol. 2001;36:250–256
30. Martinez-Moller A, Zikic D, Botnar RM, Bundschuh RA, Howe W, Ziegler SI, et al. Dual cardiac-respiratory gated PET: implementation and results from a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1447–1454
31. Buther F, Dawood M, Stegger L, Wubbeling F, Schafers M, Schober O, et al. List mode-driven cardiac and respiratory gating in PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:674–681
32. Teras M, Kokki T, Durand-Schaefer N, Noponen T, Pietila M, Kiss J, et al. Dual-gated cardiac PET-clinical feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:505–516
33. Derlin T, Toth Z, Papp L, Wisotzki C, Apostolova I, Habermann CR, et al. Correlation of inflammation assessed by 18 F-FDG PET, active mineral deposition assessed by 18 F-Fluoride PET, and vascular calcification in atherosclerotic plaque: a dual-tracer PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1020–1027
***
II.Fluosilicic Acid Industrial Fluoride Removed from Fluoridated Selmer, Tennessee.
The letter below was sent to San Diego Mayor Sanders, in an attempt to appease San Diego citizens, and myself, by asking the Mayor a favor that is not unreasonable. David Robinson, the Mayor of Selmer, Tennessee asked a few questions of the fluosilicic acid suppliers for his city and found the supplier could not provide such answers, and instead ceased to provide any further the specific fluosilicic acid formulation that had been used in Selmer for years, and then removed all fluoridation equipment and chemicals from Selmer (see Robinson letter attached). Mayor Robinson has agreed to send the correspondence he has to Mayor Sanders, if it is requested. Here is an attempt to obtain that information to have on file for the city of San Diego for reference because of use by San Diego of the same fluoridation materials used in Selmer.
Dear Mayor Sanders,
I am writing to ask a simple specific favor of you. You are fully aware of my feelings on this, but this request is not related to either the support of, nor the opposition to, water fluoridation and is not dependent on scientific data. David Robinson, the Mayor of Selmer, Tennessee wrote to me that he will provide information he obtained that resolved this issue in Selmer, that is similar to that in San Diego. Selmer City officials in the fully fluoridated state of Tennessee found itself in a position similar to here in San Diego, where citizens opposed a measure that is nevertheless required, as here by the CA State fluoridation bill. It is a great story and I’m certain you will be happy that you contacted him, in particular because in so doing you will have the latest information that will fulfill your obligations of due diligence for duty of care for citizens here.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, for the benefit of our city.
Robinson is a good and effective mayor and he wrote that he will be more than happy to forward the brief correspondence he has if you ask. His contact information he sent me is:
David Robinson
Mayor, Town of Selmer
City Hall 731-645-3241
Cell 731-610-7016
Fax 731-646-1462
***
III. Correspondence with the Office of Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco.
The FDA 2010 response to the 2007 petition stated that “artificial fluoride compounds used to fluoridate public drinking water…is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA).” To clarify for you the actual official belief held by the EPA, enclosed please find letters of communication with Jill Korte, U.S. EPA, Region 9, San Francisco, CA, Office of Drinking Water.
The following letters were recently exchanged with U.S. EPA Region 9. In summary, the EPA mistakenly proposes that fluoride is a contaminant and as long as the level is not in excess of the MCL of 2 ppm, EPA does not take action. In the letter it was admitted that no Federal requirement is allowed for agents added into water to treat people, but that EPA is not concerned with this because the EPA itself does not recommend or support the injections. Intentional injections, although in violation of the SDWA, will not be enforced until the level exceeds the allowed level for fluoride pollution at 2 ppm. In other words, EPA will do no regulating of the procedures by which fluoride compounds are titrated into water, and EPA basically views the MCL as an invitation to ‘fill ‘er up’ with a substance that is not allowed by the SDWA.
Notice my response to the EPA indicates that we all need to follow the SDWA and prohibit adding any purported medicaments or other agents into water supplies other than to sterilize the water, and that adding a fluoride compound violates the Act. No industry or private agency or citizen is allowed to add any contaminant or other substance into water simply because the total concentration after dilution is kept below the MCL that EPA has decided to allow for a pollutant. The EPA is using the MCL as though it is a value assigned for an ingestible substance approved with proper regulations required by the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act. Understand though that only proper prospective controlled human clinical trials data may be used to arrive at a daily dose for any purported ingestible compound to be taken internally, as required by the FD&CA.
I apologize for the unnecessary side topic of arsenic being mistakenly typed in a wrong column on a Water District report, rather than being an actual water error, as you will see in the exchange.
Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Palomar Community College
1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069
E-mail: richsauerheb@hotmail.com Phone: 760-402-1173
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9, San Francisco, CA
Drinking Water Office
Dear Jill Korte,
The U.S. EPA of course is not itself directly violating the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act. I realize that the EPA is not adding fluosilicic acid and is not recommending its addition either. But what you fail to see is that the State of California is in violation of the SDWA because indeed the State, under the direction of Federal dental officials at the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control by their request, is indeed adding an agent to treat humans through the public water supply, in violation of the Act.
You have claimed in your letter that the EPA allows the INTENTIONAL injection of chemical substances to treat humans through drinking water as long as the final dilution level remains below the EPA MCL for fluoride. This is absurd. Understand that the 2 ppm MCL you mention is the allowed level for fluoride as an accidental or naturally-present contaminant. It is NOT an invitation to ‘fill ‘er up’ with fluoride on purpose, as long as it remains below 2 ppm when you are done. Intentionally adding a contaminant violates the SDWA just as much as intentionally adding a substance to treat humans violates the Act. Remaining below 2 ppm does not give one the right to willfully place any substance into public water supplies.
If you as a public servant feel this way and interpret the original Congressionally-approved statutes of the SDWA that way, then please consider this:
The next time someone dumps barrels of pure arsenic into a public water supply, you have no right whatsoever to arrest him or prohibit his actions, as long as he carefully titrates it in so that the final level does not exceed the MCL for these materials that is allowed by the EPA.
Do you understand how absurd your thinking is? EPA Region 9 is a basically useless entity in helping spare the people of this country and our State from the intentional treatment of the human blood supply with industrial fluoride through drinking water. Why do you support such nonsense? EPA scientists are currently in litigation over this very matter (Connett, et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, 2010). EPA has every right to order the halt of intentionally-injected contaminants into public water supplies because the EPA is entrained to follow and enforce the SDWA as much as public citizens and anyone else in this country is obligated to honor. Indeed, as you may know, EPA scientists have published that we must stop using our Nation’s water supplies as a vehicle to dispose of toxic hazardous waste fluosilicic acid. How long does the public need to wait for help from EPA administrators?
Finally, as a chemist who is fully aware of methodology required to eliminate fluoride contamination from drinking water, please understand that the CA Department of Public Health routinely ‘certifies’ reverse osmosis units as ‘reducing fluoride by 90%.’ This is a deceptive and evil practice. In detailed interviews, chemists who perform the tests admitted that this type of reduction cannot be obtained when starting with fluoride concentrations present by intent in public water supplies. 90% reduction is only obtained when starting with fluoride levels in excess of the Ksp solubility for calcium fluoride. In other words, at 8-9 ppm fluoride where calcium fluoride precipitates as particles, of course RO easily removes them. The same instrument however is incapable of but a mere 30% or less reduction when the input water is 1-2 ppm fluoride. Fluoride removal from treated public water under conditions of current use is an expensive and non-trivial issue. Engineers have recently developed special ultra tiny pore size membranes that under high pressure can separate water from fluoride by forcing the oblong water molecule through a pore that tiny fluoride ion cannot enter, but only recently have these become available retail. Also animal bone char (Brimac), only available from facilities in Scotland, is capable of eliminating fluoride by ion exchange much like live bone can, so one’s own bones do not incorporate it. These are the only two methods that work for drinking water, and only the latter method is usable for whole house use for those who cannot shower with fluosilicic acid water due to fluoride allergy. RO wastes far too much water for every gallon produced. And whole house bone char is very expensive to maintain, particularly with Brimac shortages that already exist.
It would greatly benefit you if you could please examine the above Connett text and also the National Research Council Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, Washington, D.C., 2006 that the EPA commissioned to investigate this specific issue. The NRC concluded without reservation that the current allowed EPA MCL for fluoride is not protective of human health. This is consistent with the current CDC-documented epidemic of tooth fluorosis we now have in 41% of American children aged 12-15 as of 2001 that prompted the U.S. Health and Human Services to request water levels not exceed 0.7 ppm as an interim measure until the issue of ‘water fluoridation’ is resolved. FDA has never approved ingestion of fluoride compounds from public water supplies and has never allowed sale of fluoride compounds to be taken internally without a prescription. The petition to ban fluosilicic acid injections into water supplies in the U.S., accepted for review by the FDA in 2007 (FDA-2007-P-0346), is still pending.
We again ask the EPA to enforce the SDWA in the meantime, in particular for us here in Carlsbad, CA. The National Sanitation Foundation private organization Standard 60 ‘certification’ mark is devoid of controlled human clinical trials data to back it up, as the FDA recognizes. EPA has a long way to go to catch up on this National abuse of a substance that continues without regulation by any Federal office that agrees to accept liability or responsibility for the treatments.
You might also want to contact Mayor David Robinson of Selmer, Tennessee who will provide letters indicating that fluosilicic acid suppliers do not have any data demonstrating caries reduction in those who consume their product and have no evidence of safety for long-term consumption, particularly in the infirmed. An EPA MCL is not an allowance to ingest a substance intentionally for its drug-like effects. Food Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations must be satisfied for any such substance used as an ingestible. If you seek, you will find that the FDA ruled fluoride in water is an uncontrolled use of an un-approved drug and is not a mineral nutrient.
The FDA is not in an as easy a position as is the EPA to ban the injections or to prohibit them for selected locations in honor of the SDWA. And this is why we are asking you to act on this request instead of dismissing it on paper.
CC: Jones.Joel@epamail.epa.gov; Pringle.Everett@epamail.epa.gov; Sylls.Gene@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: Fw: (SDWA – FY12-91141-3715-CV) Referred to Region – California
From: Korte.Jill@epamail.epa.gov
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:22:55 -0800
Dear Dr. Sauerheber,
Thank you for your e-mails of 1/10/2012 regarding the Metropolitan Water’s (MWD) treated drinking water supply that is provided to Carlsbad Water District. You asked that EPA request that Carlsbad water not be treated with fluoridation materials by MWD due to your health concerns about fluoride and potential impurities in hydrofluosilicic acid, such as arsenic. The drinking water supplied by Carlsbad Water District is in compliance with the federal and state standards for both fluoride and arsenic. Furthermore, the State of California meets its obligations under the Safe Drinking Water Act for the delegation of primary enforcement authority for the public water supply supervision program with respect to the fluoride standard. The U.S. EPA cannot request that MWD stop fluoridation of its water supply.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 USC §300g-1(b)(11), does prohibit the federal government from adopting any national primary drinking water regulations that “require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” The U.S. EPA has not adopted any national regulations requiring the addition of fluoride or any other substance for preventive health care.
The SDWA, 42 USC §300g-2(a)(1), requires states such as California that have been granted primacy enforcement responsibility for public water systems to “adopt drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than the national primary drinking water regulations.” With respect to fluoride, the U.S. EPA has adopted a health-based, enforceable, primary standard of 4.0 mg/l and a secondary standard of 2.0 mg/l that is based on the cosmetic effects of dental fluorosis. Under federal regulations, public water systems with fluoride levels greater than 2.0 mg/l but less than 4.0 mg/l are subject to specific public notification requirements, but are not required to treat to levels 2.0 mg/l or less. California’s enforceable, primary standard for fluoride is 2.0 mg/l, making the state regulation more stringent than the federal regulation. Although California does require its larger public water systems to fluoridate, they are assigned an optimal fluoride level and must operate within a control range, the upper limit of which is less than the more stringent, state enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 2.0 mg/l.
Metropolitan Water District’s Skinner Water Treatment Plant provides water to Carlsbad Water District and consistently produces water that is well below the MCLs for both the state and federal fluoride and arsenic MCLs. Arsenic is not detected in the MWD supply from the Skinner Treatment Plant. In addition, treated water provided to Carlsbad Water District by the San Diego County Water Authority also meets both federal and state standards for fluoride and arsenic.
Any questions you have on fluoridation or home treatment units for fluoride removal should be directed to the California Department of Public Health in Sacramento at (916) 449-5600.
Thank you for your interest in this topic.
Sincerely,
Jill Korte, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
CA PWSS Project Officer
U.S. EPA Region 9
Drinking Water Office
75 Hawthorne St. (WTR-6)
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972-3562 (415) 947-3549 (fax)
| 01/10/2012 |
| SUBJECT: FWD: (SDWA – FY12-91141-3715-CV) Referred to Region – CaliforniaFROM: sylls.gene@epa.govTO: jones.joel@epa.gov
CC: See complaint #91144. The following tip is from the National Tips Database. This information is being provided to you for whatever action you deem appropriate. Please follow up or notify the appropriate agency. |
| 1/4/2012 8:46 PM |
| HQ LEAD NUMBER: FY12-91141-3715-CV |
| SUBJECT: Referred to Region – California |
| FROM: richsauerheb@hotmail.com |
| TO: |
| Name: Dr. Richard Sauerheber |
| Address: 1826 Redwing. St. |
| City: San Marcos |
| State: California |
| Zip: 92078 |
| Phone: 760-744-2547 |
| Alleged Violator’s Name: Carlsbad Water District |
| Alleged Violator’s Address: 5950 El Camino Real |
| Alleged Violator’s City: Carlsbad |
| Alleged Violator’s State: California |
| Alleged Violator’s Zip: 92008 |
| Tip or Complaint:I here raise a formal complaint against the Carlsbad Water District, San Diego County for its use of water with high arsenic levels, and for not reporting this clearly. A value of 120 ppb arsenic detected was listed on their water quality report 2011 with an average of 1.9 ppb. As you know, the EPA allowed MCL for arsenic since Jan., 2011 has been 10 – 50 ppb. The CA State MCL is 10 ppb and the State Public Health Goal is zero. A small amount of arsenic is diluted into water from added fluosilicic acid crude preparations that use the excuse of fighting cavities with the fluoride contained in it. Again, the As PHG is zero. Further, it is a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act for any State to be less restrictive than its clause that prohibits any National requirement for any substance added into water other than to sanitize the water. This makes it illegal to add arsenic, fluoride, or any substance other than to kill bacteria, into water and yet the practice of adding both has now spread even here to Southern CA recently against the voting willl of the public. These were the typed data in the Carlsbad Water Quality Report, 2011. Arsenic: CA MCL 10 ppb; PHG .004 Sample 1.9 Range ND – 120 I was told by an employee of CWD that the 120 number was not a reading, but an ‘allowed range’. But again the Fed and State allowed ranges do not include a number as high as 120 ppb. I told him that and he said he wasn’t sure and that I need to talk with the supervisor who is not available. The 120 number was printed in the report in the column in which measurements were reported, not in the column which lists the allowed MCL’s, as shown above.If you could look into this we would appreciate it here in Carlsbad. We have had a terrible history with elementary school children perishing with cancers of various types and we are aware of the problem with schoolhouses being built on farms (as here) where arsenic pesticides had been used and that allowed arsenic emissions are detected from the Carlsbad emission stacks from a utility. The last thing Carlsbad children need is an extra dose of arsenic from their local water supply and yet that is what they are getting, from fluosilicic acid diluted waste and obviously additional unknown sources responsible for these readings. Carlsbad should be placed on a moratorium for the addition of crude hazardous diluted fluosilicic acid waste, out of sheer courtesy to the parents of these children as well as for the safety of the children themselves.
We in So CA have had enough of fluosilicic acid waste that actually adds, for every 30 tons of added materials, 10 tons of sodium in fresh water where it does not belong, 10 tons of fluoride unwanted by the citizens, and 10 tons of silicic acid, all labeled as ‘water fluoridation.’ When does drugging the people of a city end, and who has the right to alter the bone density of citizens with fluoride that we now know crosses the blood brain barrier and injects arsenic when we are trying to remove it under our specific problematic circumstances? |
| Violation Still Occurring? Yes |
| State DEP/DEQ/DEM Notified? No |
01/10/2012
| SUBJECT: FWD: (SDWA – FY12-91144-3715-CV) Referred to Region – CaliforniaFROM: sylls.gene@epa.govTO: jones.joel@epa.gov
CC: See complaint #91141. The following tip is from the National Tips Database. This information is being provided to you for whatever action you deem appropriate. Please follow up or notify the appropriate agency. |
| 1/4/2012 11:10 PM |
| HQ LEAD NUMBER: FY12-91144-3715-CV |
| SUBJECT: Referred to Region – California |
| FROM: richsauerheb@hotmail.com |
| TO: |
| Name: Dr. Richard Sauerheber |
| Address: 1826 Redwing St. |
| City: San Marcos |
| State: California |
| Zip: 92078 |
| Phone: 760-744-2547 |
| Alleged Violator’s Name: Metropolitan Water District |
| Alleged Violator’s Address: Alameda St. |
| Alleged Violator’s City: Los Angeles |
| Alleged Violator’s State: California |
| Alleged Violator’s Zip: 90054 |
| Tip or Complaint:I earlier submitted a complaint against Carlsbad Water District, CA on behalf of children in that city. Upon reading the Vallecitos Water Report that shares the same water source, it became clear that the Carlsbad Water Quality Report made a simple clerical error and typed in a value of 120 ppb for arsenic that was actually that for barium, which is an acceptable number. The remaining part of the original complaint then is directed to Metropolitan Water, Los Angeles, because Carlsbad does not inject the fluosilicic acid materials, but rather MWD does. MWD is unaware of the arsenic issue in Carlsbad, where arsenic in schoolyard soils and from the city power plant stack parents believe is causing the high incidence of childhood cancers here. The type and class IA human carcinogen arsenic is present in small amounts in the fluosilicic acid injected for its fluoride by MWD and we ask the EPA to request that Carlsbad water not be treated with fluoridation materials by MWD, particularly inasmuch as fluoride in blood at 0.2 ppm inhibits DNA repair enzymes involved in cancer cell removal (Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, The Aging Factor, 1985; National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006; Connett, The Case Against Fluoride, 2010) and because Carlsbad Water has arsenic and lead at levels approaching their respective MCL’s both at the same time.Fluosilicic acid waste injections are requested by Federal dentists at the CDC, which is prohibited by the Safe Drinking Water Act since no National requirement may be made for any substance added into water other than to sanitize the water, and States can be no less restrictive. Ingested fluoride is not FDA approved, and States cannot require consumption by citizens of a substance that is not FDA approved. Carlsbad citizens are being disserved by EPA allowance of fluosilicic acid hazardous waste injections into city water supplies that violates the SDWA. The National Sanitation Foundation is a private agency that ‘certifies’ the injection materials without having data demonstrating it is effective at caries reduction or that it causes no harm to anyone upon long term consumption. The chemical supplier Lucier Chemicals and Brenntag Chemicals likewise have no such data demonstrating safety or effectiveness of the materials they sell and deliver to MWD and to San Diego (personal communication, Brenntag CEO, water chemicals division).
Carlsbad water also contains injected aluminum at 0.05 ppm which forms complexes with fluoride in stomach acid. Fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier, affects calcium homeostasis and induces bone cell division as a result. These children with high incidence of various lethal cancers in Carlsbad are being subject to unnecessary risk with fluoridation waste materials that is inconsistent with current conditions here. Thank you for your attention. |
| Violation Still Occurring? Yes |
| State DEP/DEQ/DEM Notified? Yes |
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego
Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos
Email: richsauerheb@hotmail.com Phone: 760-744-2547 home or 760-744-1150 x 2448 work
February 26, 2012
Dr. Iain McIntyre, Chief Toxicologist
San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office
Dear Dr. McIntyre,
Thank you very much for providing information on your article on difluorethane for today’s newspaper (“Air duster blamed in sudden deaths; compressed gas [fluoro-ethane] turning up in more autopsies in San Diego County”. MSDS sheets compiled from studies with normal healthy animals state “no toxicity” even at very high inhaled concentrations. However, rats are less sensitive to fluoride assimilation than humans, requiring usually 20 times higher fluoride concentrations to achieve a comparable human blood fluoride level for not-understood reasons. Since a certain % of fluoroethane is metabolized after inhalation to carbon dioxide and a fluoride, it may be those who are ill or have atherosclerotic plaque in brain or coronary arteries, that would be sensitive to breathing the gas. Fluoride incorporation into plaque might dislodge a small particle could cause a lung embolism for example.
Dr. Yuxin at the Veterans Administration (VA) Health Care Center in Los Angeles last month reported definitive proof that systemic fluoride ion incorporates directly into plaque in coronary arteries and the aorta of cardiovascular disease patients (Nuclear Medicine Communications, January, 2012).* There is no doubt about this, where a fluoride isotope was monitored directly with PET scans. Our Nation’s worst fluoridated water disaster occurred in Hooper Bay, Alaska when a pump valve corroded into an overfeed where 302 people were lifeflighted to a hospital with one death due to heart blockage. The fluoride level in the blood indeed matched the calculated level that causes precipitation of calcium ion necessary for the normal heart beat. The blood level that causes heart arrest lethality is in the 3 ppm range (Merck Index).
For your information, another part of the problem is that toxicity due to exposure to difluoroethane would also be logically greater in persons who consume lots of fluoridated water. North County and parts of San Diego began accepting Metropolitan Water District water treated with industrial fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) in 2007. The National Research Council (2006) reported that bone accumulates fluoride pathologically permanently from 1 ppm fluoride water to 2,500 ppm in only two years, which renders the plasma level, during continuous consumption, at a higher level, more difficult to remove by the kidneys, compared to when bone has not yet been fluoridated.
The blood fluoride level in San Diego citizens who drink city water (0.21 ppm) is 500% higher than the level present before fluosilicic acid injections began in 2011. This itself diminishes the metabolic detoxification of any fluoride source, including difluoroethane gas. San Diego Water began industrial fluorosilicic acid injections into all water supplies last year (even though the citizens voted twice against it) and even though we now know systemic fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier (Reddy, 2011; Connett, The Case Against Fluoride, 2010).
It is disturbing that even though only studies done with normal healthy animals were done (which were also absent brain function measurements), that industry recommended the widespread use of difluoroethane for any and all humans, unhealthy or not, allergic or not, etc. I will relay your article to the San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water group (www.sdsdw.org) who are committed to ending all forced industrial fluoride ingestion by humans via public water supplies against their expressed will. The State bill to treat water with industrial fluoride without FDA approval was forced upon the Legislature by dental officials, but of course is a violation of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, and the bill does not mention industrial fluorosilcic acid as a useable source for fluoride.
One day these useless unhealthy injections will be eliminated from this Nation’s water supplies, but presently San Diego city officials refuse to consider or discuss this as a possibility yet. No fluoride compound has ever been approved for ingestion by the FDA. We currently have a petition to the FDA to ban all water industrial fluoride injections for the U.S., where ingested fluoride has been proven not to lower teeth caries (Connett, 2010), which was its intended purpose when the injections began in 1945. Metropolitan Water District, Los Angeles is also under litigation in Federal Court for disseminating industrial fluorides to consumers without a prescription and without FDA approval.
Thanks for your attention,
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
*Yuxin, L., et.al., Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease, Nuclear Medicine Communications: January 2012 – Volume 33 – Issue 1 – p 14–20
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) issued the following statement regarding a March 6, 2012, New York Times article concerning recent increases in children’s cavity rates:
“The New York Times article, Preschoolers in Surgery for a Mouthful of Cavities, (March 6, 2012), notes that the causes of increased dental problems in young children vary, from a simple lack of brushing to too many sugary foods and beverages. Unfortunately, the article also incorrectly states that drinking bottled water instead of `fluoridated tap water’ can contribute to tooth decay. This statement is both inaccurate and misleading. There is absolutely no correlation between consumption of bottled water and an increase in cavities. In fact, bottled water does not contain ingredients that cause cavities, such as sugar.
For consumers who want fluoride in their drinking water and wish to choose bottled water, approximately 20 IBWA member companies make clearly-labeled fluoridated bottled water products under stringent FDA guidelines. For a complete list of these brands, which are available in many markets across the country, please visit IBWA’s Website, http://www.bottledwater.org/fluoride.
There are many sources of fluoride, and the amount of fluoride exposure varies greatly by community and individual. Approximately two-thirds of communities in the Unites States fluoridate their public drinking water supplies. Those who live in communities that do not fluoridate public drinking water, who get their drinking water from wells, or who filter their fluoridated tap water will not be getting fluoride in their drinking water. Fluoride is present in many foods and beverages and almost all toothpaste contains fluoride. Too much exposure to fluoride can lead to a condition called fluorosis, which results in stains to the teeth. Consumers should therefore look at how much fluoride they are receiving as part of an overall diet and should contact their health-care provider or dental-care provider for their recommendation.
As a packaged food product, comprehensively regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), bottled water labels must contain the name and place of business of the bottler, packer or distributor, and virtually all bottled water products provide a telephone number. With this information, consumers may contact the bottled water company directly to obtain information about the product. Bottled water companies must also follow fluoride labeling guidelines should fluoride be added to the product or be present at a naturally occurring level as set for the by FDA regulation (21C.F.R. §165.110(b).
To
|
Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration |
| Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd Drive SE Bothell, WA 98021-4421 Telephone: 425-488-8788 FAX: 425-483-4998 |
October 17, 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 06-01
Pamela Auld, C.E.O.
Chukar Cherry Company
P.O. Box 510
Prosser, Washington 99350
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Auld:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed the labeling for your cherry and chocolate covered cherry products on your web site at www.chukar.com. This review shows serious violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) in the labeling of these products. You can find the Act and implementing regulations through links on FDA’s Internet home page at www.fda.gov.
Under the Act, articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man are drugs [section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 USC 321(g)(1)(B)]. The labeling for your products bears the following claims :
“Cherries prevent cancer growth, relieve arthritis and gout pain .. . .”
“[C]ocoa can help prevent blood clots and artery hardening with polyphenols, which lowe the risk of heart attack. . . . [C]ocoa also has the `highest source of antioxidants [which reduce heart disease and cancer] in the plant kingdom.”
“Cherries May Help Fight Diabetes Cherries may one day be part of diabetes treatment. The sweet and tart versions of the fruit contain chemicals that boost insulin, which helps control blood sugar levels .”"Cherries may well be an effective remedy for many gout sufferers!”
This list of claims is not intended to be all-inclusive, but represents the types of claims found in your product labeling.These claims cause your products to be a drugs, as defined in section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 USC 321(g)(1)(B)]. Because these products are not generally recognized as safe and effective when used as labeled, they are also new drugs as defined in section 201(p) of the Act [21 USC 321(p)].Under section 505 of the Act (21 USC 355), a new drug may not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved New Drug Application (NDA). FDA approves a new drug on the basis of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective.
The above violations are not meant to be an all-inclusive list of deficiencies in your products and their labeling. It is your responsibility to ensure that products marketed by your firm comply with the Act and its implementing regulations.
Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in enforcement action without further notice.Enforcement action may include seizure of violative products, injunction against the manufacturers and distributors of violative products, and criminal sanctions against persons responsible for causing violations of the Act.
Please advise this office in writing, within 15 working days of receipt of this letter, as to the specific steps you have taken or will be taking to correct these violations, including the steps taken to assure that similar violations do not recur. Your reply should be sent to the Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Lisa M. Althar, Compliance Officer, 22201 23rd Drive SE, Bothell, Washington 98021-4421.
Sincerely,
/s/
Charles M. Breen
District Director
Vice President of EPA’s Scientist Union Testifies Against Fluoridation
STATEMENT OF
Dr. J. WILLIAM HIRZY NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 280 BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER UNITED STATES SENATE
JUNE 29, 2000
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.
Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for managements use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy.
I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.
Summary of Recommendations
1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewers independent determinations be reported to this Committee.
2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.
3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.
4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.
National Review of Fluoridation
The Subcommittees hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:
1) excessive and un-controlled fluoride exposures;
2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
4) the “protected pollutant” status of fluoride within EPA;
5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon Generals Panel on fluoride;
6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and
9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled
According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of Americas children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980′s and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.
Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Childrens bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water.
Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.
In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means.
Cancer Bioassay Findings
In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats,” changed from “clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.”
The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.
We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the “review commission” members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings.
Brain Effects Research
Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the “optimal” dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brains pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6).
Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.
Fluoride as a Protected Pollutant
The classic example of EPAs protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940′s and 1950′s as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPAs then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as,
“…an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride…” In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.
Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received.
We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances.
Surgeon Generals Panel on Fluoride
We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon Generals panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon Generals panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.
Kingston and Newburg, New York Results
In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.
We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis.
Findings of Fact by Judges
In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.
In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland New Zealand wrote the following about the case:
“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary…
“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”
In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”
Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”
The significance of Judge Flahertys statement and his and the other two judges findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.
Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.
I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled “Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water. Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).
We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases.
Hydrofluosilicic Acid
There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in childrens blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently.
We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.
Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk
In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limebacks publications.
We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions.
Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions.
CITATIONS
1.Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E, Eklund, S.A. and Burt,
B.A. J. Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997).
2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992).
2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services.1991: F1-F7.
3.Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995)
4a. Fluoride and bone -quantity versus quality [editorial] N. Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990)
4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991.
X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)
Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).
15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.
16.Transcript of proceedings -Surgeon Generals (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD.
17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40
47.
Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego)
Palomar Community College
1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 9206
E-mail: richsauerheb@hotmail.com Phone: 760-402-1173
March 4, 2012
Dear American Heart Association,
I enjoy helping the AHA distribute information you provide for neighbors. As a medical reserach scientist of many decades, with expertise in cardiovascular science from the University of CA San Diego School of Medicine, I am now writing to help you as well. Following is a portion of a letter to the FDA describing the fact that industrial fluoride in public water supplies accumulates to 0.21 ppm fluoride ion in the bloodstream, and that fluoride as a calcium chelator from blood incorporates into atherosclerotic plaque in cardiovascaule disease patients, as published last month by the Veterans Administration HealthCare Center, Los Angeles (http://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Fulltext/2012/01000/Association_of_vascular_fluoride_uptake_with.3.aspx ).
The softer the water supply with less endogenous calcium, the higher the blood fluoride level is for continuous longterm consumption lifetime. Acute heart block has occurred in people in Hooper Bay, Alaska during an industrial fluoride overfeed in their public water supply. In research animals, longterm consumption of sub-acute fluoride eventually causes heart muscle weakening due to fluoride incorporation into calcium-rich tissue. Finally, the 140 million Americans who now consume fluoridated water, at only 1 ppm, accumulate fluoride permanently into bone to thousands of mg/kg, which perturbs calcium homeostasis. The data we now have that shows an increased % of cardiovascular deaths according to the % of water systems that are fluoridated in the 50 U.S. states is not surprising (see references on fluoride consumption causing heart muscle weakening in the human being below).
I am asking the American Heart Association to please join us in our effort to halt injections of industrial fluosilicic acid into U.S. public human drinking water. If you also could be so kind as to write in support of this effort to the FDA at the address in the letter below, we would most appreciate it. Heart disease remains America’s leading killer and there is no chance of this being reversed when Americans are treated with industrial fluoride as though it were an FDA-approved drug, when it has never been FDa approved for ingestion.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
for San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water, Washington Action for Safe Water, Fluoride Class Action
References:
9. Yuxin, L., et.al., Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease, Nuclear Medicine Communications: January 2012 – Volume 33 – Issue 1 – p 14–20 http://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Fulltext/2012/01000/Association_of_vascular_fluoride_uptake_with.3.aspx
Ignoring the democratic process and discouraging a healthy dialog, the California Dental Association worked secretly, quickly and dishonestly to pass a 1995 California fluoridation law, that forces most California communities to add fluoride chemicals into the public water supplies, whether Californians want it or not, according to “The Fluoride Victory,” published in the Journal of the California Dental Association.(1)It’s supposed to stop tooth decay in tap water drinkers; but it doesn’t.
California Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, working with the California Dental Association (CDA), sponsored the fluoridation bill, eventually signed into law in 1995, forcing all California water companies, with 10,000 service connections, to add nonessential fluoride chemicals into the drinking water without constituent or local governing body approval, discussion or referendum.
“To make the most of the element of surprise, it was decided that Speier would wait until the last possible moment to introduce her fluoridation bill,” writes author Joanne Boyd.
“’We pretty much knew we’d catch (the anti-fluoridation faction) by surprise because it wasn’t well known outside of the dental community what was going on,’ said Liz Snow, assistant director of CDA’s Government Relations (lobbying) Office. ‘But we didn’t want to give the other side any more time to mobilize than absolutely necessary,’” writes Boyd.
William Keese, CDA Director of Government Relations, a lobbyist, received many compliments from other lobbyists on the campaign.
“I wouldn’t say we pulled a rabbit out of a hat, but it was a coup. We worked hard at getting prepared and using the element of surprise to our advantage. We moved fast and did it in one year,” Boyd quotes Keese as saying.
Many of the nation’s most familiar pro-fluoride lobbiests, were involved in the California battle including zealous fluoridationist, dentist Michael Easley brought in from Kentucky, at the time. (By the way, tooth decay doubled in Kentucky after water fluoridation (2)).
To the antifluoridation folks, Easley brags, I’m Public Enemy Number 1. (3) Easley travels world-wide touting one issue, fluoridation. Easley used taxpayer money to create a biased, document about fluoridation containing factual errors.(12)
Intending to insult anti-fluoridationists, Boyd quotes lobbyest Snow as saying, “’When you’re a single-issue person – when that issue pops up, regardless of where it is – that’s where you go,’ Snow said. They remind me of Deadheads. Anywhere the Grateful Dead would go, there would be the same group of followers.” Snow’s criticism more aptly fits Easley or the national lobbyests provided by the country-wide dentists’ union, the American Dental Association (ADA).
Unlike pro-fluoridation special-interest groups, fluoridation opponents use their own time, their own money, usually to protect their own drinking water and have actually studied the issue. There are different opponents in every town.
On the other hand, the ADA, went all out to support the 1995 California fluoridation bill, assisting in spokesperson training, legislative testimony and providing literature to distribute, reports Boyd.
With decades of commercials, advertisements and organized dentistry’s web of support, influence and money working against them, and during the OJ trial, Californians opposed to fluoridation hardly had a chance to voice dissent.
The California campaign is a “blueprint” for organized dentistry to push fluoridation across the USA. This despite evidence fluoridation fails to reduce tooth decay by the same dentists who told the California legislature the opposite.
Untrained to diagnose fluoride’s adverse effects, California fluoridationist and dentist “Howard Pollick, …, likened the anti-fluoride activists to the Flat Earth Society. ‘Ever since science proved that the earth is round, there’s been a Flat Earth Society whose members refuse to acknowledge a scientific truth.”’ Pollick’s quote is in “The Fluoride Victory.”
Pollick should join the Flat Earth Society – in fact – he should be their President because he doesn’t even believe his own research.
According to Pollick and colleagues, “It may…be that fluoridation of drinking water does not have a strong protective effect against early childhood caries (ECC),” was reported in the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry(4).
Howard Pollick, DDS, is a clinical professor with the University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, and co-chairman of the California Fluoridation Task Force. Pollick is now also the American Dental Association fluoridation spokesperson .
Pollick’s team studied 2,520 California preschool children as part of the “California Oral Health Needs Assessment of Children Study” which helped convinced California legislators to mandate fluoridation statewide in 1995(5).
A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.
“…the primary sampling units were selected on the basis of fluoridation status: three were fluoridated urban regions, two were rural (nonfluoridated),and five were non-fluoridated urban regions,” they report. “Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water,” reports Pollick et al.
Pollick reports in the “International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health” that infant formula made with optimally fluoridated water might create brown and pitted permanent teeth(17). We wonder if Pollick, turned fluoridation lobbyest in Arkansas, informs elected bodies that, if they fluoridate their water supplies, they must provide bottled fluoride-free water for infant consumption.
Many studies show children’s teeth will grow in stained if fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.(18) And November 2006, the ADA admitted that mixing infant formula with fluoridated water is not advised because of the high risk of dental fluorosis. Oddly, the Centers for Disease Control usually follows the ADA and issued its warning only on the CDC’s website.
On 9/2/04 Pollick presented selective pro-fluoridation information to two committees of the Arkansas legislature, instigating a state-wide fluoridation law, telling legislators to disbelieve anti-fluoridationists because they use the internet. Unfortunately, for Pollick, we use his own words to contradict what he tells legislators in private. I guess that’s why he doesn’t recommend the internet.
Organized dentistry gets an A+ for political savvy; but an F for fluoride science. Legislators assume organized dentistry does their fluoride homework; but they don’t. Maybe legislators really don’t care. All they see is someone who represents organizations with deep pockets,political clout and influential members and hear blah, blah, blah but say yes to anything they want.
A July 2008 New York Times editorial uncovered evidence that shows the New York State Dental Society gets virtually every law they want passed. Then legislators find big fat campaign donations in their mailboxes, according to the NY Times. Anyone who still believes that organized dentistry uses its political might and money on fluoridation for our benefit and not their own, needs to take politics 101.
Fluoride opposition is based on sound science – not back-door political activism. Unfortunately, we don’t have the money, influence and network they do. We only have the truth.
People who get paid to promote fluoridation:
– Dental directors in almost every state with offices, budgets, staffs and traveling expenses, most of whom aren’t passionate about fluoridation – just doing their job.
– An army of uniformed U.S. Centers for Disease Control dentists, based in Atlanta, Georgia, who took up the front row, at taxpayer expense, in a Suffolk County, New York, legislative fluoridation meeting. The Suffolk County legislature still voted down fluoridation in the 1990′s.
– National Institutes of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) dentists. The NIDCR displays a magnified image of a fluoride crystal on their website’s logo as a reminder that this institute was born on the back of fluoridation. Millions of dollars are meted out to dental researchers to study fluoride’s tooth, not bodily, effects. These researchers depend upon and defend fluoridation even when they aren’t asked.
– Public-health-dentists and dental professors in Universities and dental schools who sometimes require entire classes of dental students take up space and alloted time before governing bodies in local fluoridation battles to essentially silence residents opposed to fluoridation.
– The U.S. Surgeon General who reports a dental health epidemic in the U.S. despite almost five decades of water fluoridation reaching about 2/3 of Americans and virtually 100% through the food and beverage supply.
At their disposal is a web of dentists across the U.S. too willing to follow Organized Dentistry’s instructions to lobby their legislator-patients and instigate fluoridation whenever they can, making it appear to be a local initiative. They are offered strategy materials, videos, power point presentations and a half day continuing education program entitled “Get the Drop on Community Water Fluoridation!”
Don’t expect the research community to speak on your behalf. Some who did lost their jobs, grant money and reputations such as Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, once a rising star in the research community until she discovered fluoride could pass into the brain causing mental deficits.
Instead of ordering up more studies to prove or disprove her findings, organized dentistry destroyed the messenger and ignored her findings(9) which have never been successfully refuted scientifically. However, research from China and other countries bolster her findings.
Dr. William Marcus exposed the government’s downgrading of bone cancer in lab animals exposed to fluoride in a study by the National Toxicology Program (9a). Marcus was fired, then re-hired under the whistleblower’s act with back pay; but the scientific research showing fluoride induces bone cancer in rats has never been corrected.(10)
Canadian researchers aren’t encouraged to speak out either when they disagree (11).
Timid, fearful or greedy dental researchers usually conclude “more study needed” when they unexpectedly find negative fluoride data.
The fluoridators still strategically avoid debates because they know their information doesn’t stand up to objective scrutiny. They like back door political wrangling instead.
Organized dentistry’s tactic now is to work behind the scenes forming “dental health committees” presenting one-sided, sometimes wrong, information, to local children’s, health and church groups, and the media, convincing them that fluoridation is safe, effective and cheap while insulting and denigrating those opposed or as Easley call us, “fluorophobes.” They effectively indoctrinate trusting people to love them and hate us. They are masters of manipulation.
Susan Allen, Florida’s Fluoridation Coordinator wrote in a 1990 memo to St. Petersburg’s Director of Inner City Governmental Relations, “There are several tactical strategies that seem to promote (fluoridation) success; the 1st being – Keep a low profile: the least amount of publicity the better.
2. Approach community officials individually. Better yet, convince someone they know and respect to convince them …’
4. Avoid a referendum. The statistics are that 3 out of 4 fluoridation referenda fail.”
It’s incredible that fluoridation opponents win any fluoridation battles against this huge fluoridating machine. But we do (8) because the evidence speaks for itself. We just present it. However, Californians never had a chance to defend themselves against the evil fluoridators.
Despite fluoridation since 1954, 2/3 of elementary schoolchildren and about 1/3 of San Francisco preschoolers, had cavities, according to a 1996/97 survey that also reveals cavity prevalence in fluoridated San Francisco is similar to the rest of California, mostly non-fluoridated at the time of the survey. (6)
Yet San Francisco reportedly spent $2,500,000 on a new or updated fluoridation facility
And that’s politics!
References:
(1) “The Fluoride Victory,” by Joanne Boyd, January 1997 cover story in the Journal of the California Dental Association, Vol 25, No. 1
(2) http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release.asp?objid=D1D1366D000000F8F97F0DE9FB13C05C
(3) http://www.sdm.buffalo.edu/news/19990215_fluoride.html
(4) “The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity among California Preschool Children, by Shiboski, Gansky, Ramos-Gomez, Ngo, Isman, Pollick, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Winter 2003, pages 38-46 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12597584
(5)http://www.nofluoride.com/needs_assessment.htm
(6) http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/Reports/98ChildHealth/oralhe~1.pdf
(7) http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/5/MSC_ID/19/MTO_ID/57/C_ID/1652/
(8) http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm
(9) Excerpt from “The Fluoride Deception,” by Christopher Bryson about Phyllis Mullenix (scroll down)
http://www.sevenstories.com/closeup/index.cfm?page=excerpt/Fluoride_Excerpt.html
(9a) http://www.fluoridealert.org/marcus.htm
(10) http://www.fluoridealert.org/marcus3.htm
(11) http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1089843028895&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&tacodalogin=no
(12)
www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/cdcb/Medicine/ OralHealth/Fluoride/documents/calprojt.doc
(13) http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=123796
(13a) http://www.joplinindependent.com/display_article.php/mariwinn1093734138
(14) http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/0718-Blackholes-135710.html
(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15022522
(16) http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/0705-Dentalcare-125845.html
(17)”Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States,” Howard F. Pollick, BDS, MPH, Internationa Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, Jun/Sep, 2004.
http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/1003_Pollick.pdf
(18) http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/11749/108203
PRESS RELEASE:
EVERETT HALTS FLUORIDATION
DENTIST, ATTORNEYS, AND SAFE WATER GROUPS
URGE EVERETT NOT TO RESTART
February 27, 2012
Summary:
Everett Utilities turned off the fluoride on February 9.
CPVC pipes in the fluoridation building had lost their integrity and were leaking hydrogen fluoride, among the most poisonous and penetrating of all substances.
Everett sells water to some 700,000 people from Marysville to Edmonds.
The fluoridation building sits on one corner of the treatment plant, which is located north of Sultan at Lake Chaplain. The fluoride will be off until pipes and control systems can be replaced.
Dentist Bill Osmunson, attorneys James Robert Deal and Gerald Steel, Fluoride-Class-Action, and Washington Action for Safe Water are urging Everett not to restart fluoridation without first holding hearings regarding the safety and effectiveness of the industrial grade fluoridation materials used.
See http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases for the latest version of this press release and to make it easier to follow hyperlinks.
Primary contact person: James Robert Deal, 425-771-1110, James@Fluoride-Class-Action.com.
Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH, says:
The industrial grade silicofluoride added to our water slowly harm us all. However, I choose to focus first on infants and fetuses. They are hurt the most and the quickest.
The type of fluoride used contains lead and arsenic. Arsenic is a type one confirmed human carcinogen. Lead is only slightly less toxic. They both permeate every cell in the body. There is no amount of arsenic or lead which we can safely add to drinking water.
Infants and fetuses are most vulnerable because their cells are still dividing and because their kidneys are undeveloped and cannot excrete toxins well. These toxins cross the placental barrier and the blood-brain barrier, and numerous Chinese studies show lower intelligence in fluoridated areas. We are dumbing down our children. The CDC and the ADA admit that we are giving dental fluorosis to 41 percent of our children. Around a quarter of fluorosis cases are ugly and difficult and costly to cover up.
Most dentists believe fluoride is effective topically, but many have come to believe that that it does not work systemically and therefore should not be forced on everyone through our drinking water. Dental associations still punish dentists who question fluoridation.
I supported fluoridation for 25 years – until I studied the science. I have read hundreds, maybe thousands of journal articles and books on the subject. Fluoridation is a myth, just like tetraethyl lead, asbestos, tobacco, and DDT.
Dr. Osmunson, DDS, MPH, is the president of Washington Action for Safe Water. He is a cosmetic dentist practicing in Bellevue and Portland. Before becoming a dentist, he worked as a professional in public health. Contact Dr. Osmunson at 425-466-0100, bill@washingtonsafewater.com
Washington Action for Safe Water is a non-profit association which focuses on educating city councils, the Washington Board of Health, and Governor Gregoire on all aspects of safe and clean water.
James Robert Deal, Lynnwood attorney and president of Fluoride Class Action, says:
The industrial grade fluorosilicic acid which Everett uses to fluoridate fails to meet legal standards, and so it is illegal to fluoridate with it.
Washington law, WAC 246-290-220(3), says that
any treatment chemicals … added to water intended for potable use must comply with ANSI/NSF Standard 60.
What does NSF 60 say? The NSF web site and the NSF Standard for Drinking Water Additives, say:
Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and … to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … The NSF standard requires … assays of genetic toxicity, … reproductive toxicity, … chronic toxicity … endocrine disruption …. The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … [among others] … product manufacturing representatives.
However, NSF officials have admitted, one of them under oath, that toxicological studies are not being done.
(See transcript of California deposition (http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/appendix-e-stan-hazen-deposition1.pdf, pages 22, 67).
Thus fluoridation materials do not “comply” with NSF 60.
Fluoridation may only be done with fluoridation materials which “comply” with NSF 60. The fluoride Everett uses does not comply with NSF 60. Therefore, fluoridation with it is illegal.
Deal says:
Our two groups have explained this to the Everett City Council on a dozen occasions since July. Some council members admit they drink bottled water. A video of my explanation to the City Council is posted on the City’s web site, however the ending, in which I state that fluoridation with these materials is illegal, was cut off.
The Everett City Council is trying very hard to ignore this issue, but I think they eventually will come around. The industrial grade silicofluoride is poisoning them too – and their children and grandchildren.
Deal says:
On the litigation front, water districts should take heed of the fluoridation lawsuits which have been filed in federal courts in California, Maryland, and in the Washington courts.
Three safe water groups presented their case to the Seattle City Attorney’s office on January 9.
Fluoride Class Action has written to Jenny Durkin, US Attorney in Seattle, asking her to bring appropriate action to stop these violations of law. See http://fluoride-class-action.com/seattle/us-attorney.
Fluoride Class Action is an informal group of attorneys and scientists from far and wide who share ideas and work together to warn utility districts of their potential liability if they continue to add industrial grade fluoride to drinking water. Fluoride Class Action posts information at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com.
Attorney Deal is the president of Fluoride Class Action. He can be contacted at 425-771-1110, James@JamesRobertDeal.com.
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, PhD says:
Consuming fluoride does not in any way strengthen teeth. It makes all bones more brittle. Fluoride binds with calcium in bones and organs throughout the body.
It is a long term chronic poison for adults. It is a short-term acute poison for fetuses and babies. Their cells are still dividing. Fluoride interrupts enzymatic action. It denatures proteins. It is an anticholinesterase inhibitor. It damages brain tissue and reduces IQ while the fetus is still in the womb. There is no safe level of fluoride in drinking water. The same can be said for the lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and a host of other toxins included with the silicofluoride.
Applying fluoride to teeth as toothpaste or concentrated gel does not in any way strengthen teeth. The fluoride in toothpaste bonds only weakly to calcium in teeth, and as soon as we eat anything acidic, the fluoride washes right off, and we swallow it. We are eating our tooth paste and getting a big dose of fluoride as we do.
Fluoridated toothpaste should be sold by prescription only and be kept away from children. Too many children lock themselves in the bathroom and eat toothpaste as if it were ice cream and become permanently hypersensitized.
The body needs no fluoride whatsoever. The less fluoride we consume the better.
Dr. Sauerheber says:
Further, silicofluoride leaches lead from pipes and fittings. Seattle schools and all older buildings have a lead problem. When fluoridation stops, blood lead levels drop.
Do not bathe infants in fluoridated water. Their skin is soft and the keratin layer has not built up, and so fluoride penetrates their skin.
Dr. Richard Sauerheber can be contacted at (760) 402-1173, richsauerheb@hotmail.com. He has a Ph.D. in chemistry and teaches at Palomar College in San Diego. He has published numerous peer reviewed articles in scientific journals.
Deal says:
Members of our two groups toured the water treatment facility at Sultan. The hydrogen fluoride molecule is tiny and neutral in charge and slips through tiny cracks in aging CPVC pipe. The window in the door into the building was frosted with acidic etchings from hydrogen fluoride in the air.
The fluoridation building has powerful fans that constantly suck air up and out through vents on the roof of the building. Nevertheless, there was enough hydrogen fluoride in the air to make me dizzy, and I had to leave the building right away.
Not only is the interior of the fluoridation building vented, the three fluoride tanks themselves are vented – directly onto the roof. Hydrogen fluoride is constantly escaping into the air above the building.
Contact Everett Water Processing at 425-257-8878 for more information or to arrange a tour.
Attorney and engineer Gerald Steel of Olympia says:
The Washington State Supreme Court is considering our appeal that argues that fluoridation products are drugs and prescription drugs that are unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration and are therefore being illegally marketed. It would be wise for Everett to put fluoridation on hold until the Court rules on this issue. Distribution of fluoridation products and fluoridation products in public drinking water may be a criminal offense.
Gerald Steel is an attorney and professional engineer. He is the lead attorney in a suit against the City of Port Angeles and the City of Forks that requests that their fluoridation products be seized for being unapproved drugs. Contact him at 360-867-1166, GeraldSteel@Yahoo.com.
See http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases for the latest version of this press release.
End
Read this growing list of lawsuits pending regarding water contamination in the form of lead, arsenic, mercury, and other contaminants added to drinking water as part of our misguided custom of adding industrial grade fluoride to drinking water.
There is a rumor that a new lawsuit over industrial grade fluoridation materials will be filed in federal court in a state in the South. We will post it as soon as it is filed.
http://fluoride-class-action.com/hempfest-2011
August 20, 2011
Seattle, Everett, Tacoma and other cities use silicofluoride as the fluoridation material they add to their drinking water. Silicofluoride and sodium fluoride are much more toxic than naturally occurring calcium fluoride. Calcium fluoride can be the most pure; sodium fluoride is industrial grade but relatively free of contaminants; silicofluoride is industrial grade toxic waste and highly contaminated with heavy metals.
Silicofluoride contains lead. http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf. The EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead is 15 ppb, and the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) is zero. Lead permeates all cells in the body, reduces IQ, and causes kidney disease and high blood pressure.
In 2004, the Seattle papers reported that lead at up to 1,600 ppb was found in drinking water in old Seattle schools. Silicofluoride, unlike more expensive sodium fluoride, leaches lead out of brass pipes. http://www.fluoridealert.org/sf-masters.htm.
New brass pipes contain around 8% lead and older pipes contain as much as 30% lead. All old schools, old homes, old apartment buildings, old hospitals, old office buildings, and old factories can be expected to contain brass pipes with high lead content, which silicofluoride will leach out. http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead.
If water districts stopped fluoridating with silicofluorides, lead levels in water in old buildings would drop dramatically and lead levels in blood would drop dramatically. http://www.fluoridealert.org/sf-masters.htm.
After commissioning some early reports on the subject, Seattle government on all levels has ignored this issue. The lead problem has not been resolved. Reports on the lead problem do not even mention the possibility of a connection between lead levels and fluoridation!
Fluoridation exists within a blindspot. It has become an article of faith. One is told not to try to understand the mystery but to believe in it fervently nevertheless. When it comes to politics, one is saved by faith in fluoride. A politician who opposes fluoridation will have to contend with the wrath and bottomless war chest of the pro-fluoride dental lobby, who probably get their money indirectly from the silicofluoride manufacturers.
Silicofluoride also contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen. For arsenic the MCL is 10 ppb and the MCLG is zero. A zero MCLG for lead and arsenic means that there is no level of lead or arsenic which can safely be added to drinking water. http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm
Silicofluoride has not yet been proven to be a carcinogen, but it is recognized as a poison. As little as seven grams of silicofluoride or sodium fluoride, the weight of seven paper clips, can kill a 70 kg adult. It would take a half pound of calcium fluoride to do the same. The one milligram of silicofluoride per liter which our cities add to drinking water is of course not immediately fatal, however, a healthy adult is only able to excrete half of all fluoride consumed, while the body retains the other half. Fluoride seeks out calcium, and is retained in calcium rich areas of the body. Once in our bones, fluoride can never be removed.
The effect is cumulative. After a decade or less of drinking fluoridated water, our bones can be around 5,000 ppm fluoride, and as a result we feel stiff and lethargic. In our 50s and 60s, bone and other tissues can be up to 12,000 ppm fluoride, depending on water hardness and one’s diet, making bones brittle. Fractured pelvises are twice as common in fluoridated areas. One who drinks fluoridated water all his life will be less healthy as he ages and may have a shorter life span.
Silicofluoride affects bones, joints, and tendons and exacerbates arthritic symptoms. Silicofluoride is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and a general enzyme inhibitor. It denatures proteins. It slowly but surely attacks the thyroid, pituitary, pineal, and other glands. Fluoride builds up in the kidneys and prevents them from functioning normally and hastens death by kidney failure. Those on kidney dialysis may find that their kidneys would heal if they would stop drinking fluoridated water. http://fluoridedetective.com/2011/02/07/kidney-patients-beware
Silicofluoride breaks down in such a way that the fluoride ion binds with aluminum. Aluminum fluoride passes the blood-brain barrier, delivering aluminum into the brain, which is believed to cause or worsen Alzheimer’s disease.
Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor in general are more sensitive to lead, arsenic, and silicofluoride than the general population. Alveda King, Bernice King, Andrew Young see fluoridation as a new civil rights issue. http://fluoride-class-action.com/alveda-king-andrew-young-against-fluoride.
Babies are most sensitive because their cells are still dividing, because they are growing fast, and because they drink so much fluids relative to their body weight. CDC, ADA, AMA, the surgeon general, and others have advised that formula not be mixed using fluoridated water. But the poor are unable to buy and haul fluoride-free water home or filter it out. Only an expensive filter or distiller can remove the tiny fluoride ion. This is an admission that the poor a definitely being harmed, poor babies in particular.
Athletes, hard laborers, and those with diabetes and kidney disease are highly vulnerable because they drink up to ten times as much water as typical people. The dose cannot be controlled.
In all of Western Washington, we are especially susceptible to the slow but certain ravages of fluoride because our snow melt water is exceptionally soft and contains little calcium, which would bind with and tie up fluoride.
The silicofluoride used is the unfiltered and unprocessed scrubber liquor from the smoke stacks of phosphate fertilizer plants in Florida, Louisiana, Mexico, and China. It contains trace amounts of nearly every element on the periodic table. http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideandphosphate.htm. It is not pharmaceutical grade. Silicofluoride has never been approved by the FDA, EPA, or any other federal or state agency for consumption in public drinking water. Fluorides have been approved for topical use, as in toothpaste, but the fluoride is to be spat out. If it is swallowed, one is to call poison control.
Silicofluoride is only approved by NSF, the National Sanitation Foundation, a chemical company trade organization which operates as a sham FDA. http://fluoride-class-action.com/sham.
One small Office of Drinking Water within the CDC pushes fluoridation, but the CDC has no authority whatsoever to approve or disapprove fluoridation. The CDC, EPA, and the surgeon general all endorse fluoridation. The CDC claims it is one of the ten greatest health achievements of the 20th Century. However, endorsements do not prove anything. One must look at the science. Following release of the 2006 National Research Council Report on Fluoridation, it is clear that fluoridation is instead one of the ten greatest frauds of the 20th Century. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
Cities buy silicofluoride scrubber liquor by the tanker truck load and dribble it into our water. Fluoridation is an expensive. Silicofluoride corrodes equipment and shortens its useful life. Hazmat suits must be worn to handle silicofluoride. When the liquid is spilled on concrete, it burns a hole through it, as it will do to steel and glass. In this era of declining tax revenues and budget cuts it is hard to justify adding dilute toxic waste to drinking water. For every ton of silicofluoride added to water, one must add a half ton of sodium hydroxide. That’s right, we are adding Draino® to our drinking water.
Silicofluoride is not a mere additive such as chlorine, which is added to kill bacteria. Chlorine evaporates out of water overnight if left in an open pitcher. Silicofluoride is intended as medication and delivered without prescription, without inquiry into preexisting conditions and contraindications or conflicts with other drugs being taken, without informed consent, and with no control over dose or duration of use.
Silicofluoride is added allegedly to reduce tooth decay, however, documents posted on the CDC website claim only a 17-25% reduction in tooth decay. Other credible studies show no reduction. Tooth decay has dropped just as much in non-fluoridated Europe as in fluoridated United States, so fluoridation cannot be the causal factor.
Documents posted on the CDC website admit that the effect of fluoride on teeth is topical and not systemic, but strangely, CDC still endorses drinking fluoride. Documents on the CDC website admit that 41% of children 12 – 15 years old have at least mild fluorosis (white spots), while 8.6% suffer from moderate fluorosis (brown spots), and 3.6% suffer from severe fluorosis (brown spots and pitting). Fluorosis can be ugly. Fluorosis should not be forced on people just so tooth decay can allegedly be reduced and only slightly. The way to cut tooth decay is to quit eating junk food and drinking pop.
Seattle and Everett have been served Notice of Potential Liability in connection with the lead, arsenic, and silicofluoride which they add to drinking water. Cities should consult with their insurance carriers to confirm they will be covered when the class action and mass toxic tort actions come. Cities can reduce their liability by instituting an immediate one-year moratorium on fluoridation, thus showing good faith after all these years of fluoridating unquestioningly and without understanding the science. Failure on the part of these cities to look at the science regarding fluoridation will constitute reckless indifference to the harms caused and expose them to liability.
About Fluoride Class Action: Our method is first, to warn cities that the fluoridation suits are coming. We explain how fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay and is therefore a waste of money, and that fluoridation causes harm in many ways and thus that cities can be held liable for large damage awards. Second, we equip citizens with the tools they need to carry on this process, each in their own community – notices of liability, freedom of information FOIA requests, short speeches, and sample lawsuit documents. Third, we encourage groups to recruit attorneys to work on this project. Attorneys have a non-binding duty to do pro bono work, and so attorneys are always looking for interesting and fulfilling pro bono work to do. Attorneys can quickly put the Fluoride Class Action documents on their own letterhead and make a big impact right away. We want local attorneys to warn their cities of potential liability and as well to prepare for suit.
More reading:
http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/report-card-for-hhs.
http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead.
Suit filed in federal court in San Diego:
http://fluoride-class-action.com/citizens-for-safe-drinking-water-sue
Tetraethyl lead, foisted on America by the same Kettering Institute which conned America into fluoridating. http://fluoride-class-action.com/speeches/tetraethyl-lead
NSF – National Sanitation Foundation – a chemical company trade association, funded by EPA to certify silicofluoride to be safe and approved for use, thus operating as a sham FDA. http://fluoride-class-action.com/sham
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
What you can do:
Make speeches – Visit your city and county council, water district, school district. Make 3-minute speeches during public comment period. Start with our sample speeches. More will be posted soon. http://fluoride-class-action.com/speeches. Or just read paragraphs off this flier for three minutes.
Send a fluoride questionnaire to all elected officials.
http://fluoride-class-action.com/action-plan/questionaire-to-pols
Warn of Liability – Send Notice of Potential Liability to elected councils.
http://fluoride-class-action.com/seattle/notice-of-liability-to-seattle-8-8-2011
Print more of these fliers. Modify them if you want. Hand them out. The Word version is at :
http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/hempfest-fliers.
James Robert Deal, Attorney, WSBA Number 8103 President, www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com Vice-President, www.WashingtonSafeWater.com
I met Mr. Deal at Occupy Seattle and he said to send him e-mail, but the flier he gave me has no e-mail address.
My colleague, Prof. Fran Solomon, is an expert on toxic effects of metals and other chemicals on aquatic ecosystems. She believes that activists are most effective when well informed. It could be useful to have her talk to your group.
Last year, Dr. Solomon was invited to Anchorage by the Nature Conservancy, University of Alaska and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to present a workshop on “Impacts of Metals on Aquatic Ecosystems and Human Health”. The main audience was regulators, activists and Native Americans. The workshop was presented a few days before a hearing on the proposed Pebble Mine. She did not take a public stand for or against the mine and presented impartial information. Mining representatives felt that she was unduly harsh on the industry.
Our son, Ben, our 2 dogs & I were diagnosed with Cancer around the same time. We found Arsenic III, Manganese & Iron in our deep well. I have also put Cancer Clusters together and the State of GA is investigating. I have sent letter to the City of Ocilla, GA asking them to stop Flouride immediately. My facebook name is Janet McMahan. My pic is of 4 children, the second Cancer Cluster. The UGA Agriculture & Enviro Lab sent letters to all Ext Agents telling them that they were finding TOXIC LEVELS of ARSENIC & URANIUM. They also said their intent was ‘NOT TO ALARM THE PUBLIC”… My husband, a Family Physician, and I took the letter to Wash, DC and asked their help. Congressmen put my husband in touch with NIH. I am finding studies linking drinking water to cancer. My son’s website is http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/benmcmahan
New Tennessee law (below) would effectively ban water contamination by any chemical, including lead, arsenic, lithium, aluminum, and other contaminants, including commercial grade fluorosilicic acid. It would do that by requiring suppliers of additives to provide they are safe and effective.
This is the text of the new law:
***
SB 3760 by *Gresham. (HB 3790 by *Dennis.)
Water – As introduced, requires manufacturers of products added to public water systems to verify the safety of such products to the system operators. – Amends TCA Title 53, Chapter 1, Part 1 and Title 68, Chapter 221, Part 7.
Increase State Expenditures – $213,900/General Fund $428,500/Environmental Protection Fund Increase Local Expenditures – Exceeds $4,000,000*
This bill requires public water systems to only purchase such substances from chemical manufacturers or responsible entities in the chain of delivery of the product who provide a declaration for their product that the product:
(1) Is effective at treating the legislatively-identified specific disease or health condition, or affects the bodily functions to prevent the specific adverse health condition in consumers, consistent with fulfilling the stated legislative intent for this product’s use; and
(2) Is safe for the full range of expected human consumption at these dilution ranges, without known or anticipated adverse health effects over a lifetime, including for infants, children, the elderly, and other populations afforded equal protection.
This bill requires public water system operators to require, as a condition of purchase, that manufacturers of specific products water system operators add or intend to add to the public drinking water for purposes of treating or affecting the bodily functions of consumers must provide and annually update a list of studies relating to their products and identify the geographic origin of their products.
This bill requires water system operators to make all information provided by manufacturers or responsible parties in the chain of product delivery pursuant to this bill readily accessible to the public. The full text of this bill lists product information that each public water system operator will be required to make available to the public.
To assure that public water system operators have selected and are administering water additive products intended to treat or affect the bodily functions of consumers that meet the requirements of state law and rules and regulations, this bill requires water system operators, as a condition of purchase, to obtain a copy of the manufacturer’s product declaration in force at the time of contract.
This bill requires that public water system operators select and add to the public drinking water only these products intended to treat and affect the bodily functions of consumers that meet, at a minimum, the applicable published American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard for a product’s specific chemical classification. In order to assure fulfillment of AWWA standards, this bill requires public water system operators to obtain from the manufacturer, or other responsible party in the chain of delivery, an independent analysis by an ANSI or NSF International certified laboratory determining the content, and specific concentrations of each contaminant, of each shipment of the product, to be correlated with the manufacturer’s product declaration. The batch analyses on each delivery of products, must be maintained and made immediately accessible to the public by the water system operator.
Under this bill, a chemical manufacturer or responsible entity in the chain of delivery of the product person who knowingly omits or falsifies information required pursuant to this bill commits a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a fine only of up to $500. Each violation of this bill will be considered a separate offense.
***
Comment:
Any and all additives to drinking water should be thoroughly tested. No additives should be employed which have any adverse effect on anyone. Water should be as close to “just water” as is practical.
All contaminants should be addressed. The reason why we focus on “fluoride” is that the commercial grade fluorosilicic acid used contains all these other contaminants.
In discussing this issue, it is important that we focus on contaminants that are known and believed by the public to be harmful. Lead and arsenic are the two best nominees. Everyone knows and believes them to be harmful.
Third on the is commercial grade fluorosilicic acid.
Not “fluoride”. We should quit referring to “fluoride”. So-called fluoride has been given a shiny patina by advertisers. We should use more exact terms: fluorsilicic acid, sodium fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, aluminum fluoride, and calcium fluoride. Naturally occurring fluoride is calcium fluoride, lethal only through long term use. Fluoridation started in 1945 with sodium fluoride, which came from aluminum production and was championed by Aloca. By 1950 industrial grade fluorosilicic acid was substituted. It was cheaper and more abundant, and even more contaminated than sodium fluoride.
Industrial grade fluorosilicic acid contains the lead and arsenic and all the other contaminants, and so it is often made the focus. It is the vector for the other contaminants. But it is not the only contaminant.
Even if the use of industrial grade fluorosilicic acid is stopped, we have failed if we do not prevent injections of other contaminants. And the contaminant right around the corner is lithium. Adding lithium has already been tried.
The way to add lithium is simply to recycle sewer water – which contains lithium. Lithium comes from brakes and other commercial sources. The so called “toilet-to-tap” scheme is a a round about way to add lithium to drinking water, by retaining the lithium already there.
The reverse osmosis technology used by San Diego in their toilet-to-tap filtration plant cannot remove the tiny lithium atom. The toilet-to-tap plant in San Diego is nearly ready to turn on.
If commercial grade fluorosilicic acid is banned as a drinking water, but lithium is allowed, we will not have not done our job.
The focus of the Safe Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act was that waters should be as free from contaminants as possible. We must be “protectors of the well”.
The big opposition to our safe water effort is from the dollar fixated chemical companies who would have to change their dollar fixated ways and focus not on selling as many chemicals as possible but on selling as few chemicals as possible.
Anything that can be done non-chemically, organically, should be done that way.
The debate is not just over industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. It is over becoming a non-chemical, organic nation.
This is one of the areas in which we should amend our Constitution. Pure water should be declared to be a right in the Constitution, along with being as non-chemical and as organic as possible.
James
On February 11th, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), a citizen watchdog group, reported that the New Jersey legislature is in the process of putting together a new law that would force mandatory fluoridation to public water systems across the entire state.
While public water utilities use numerous techniques to remove sediment and bacteria from the public water supply, fluoride represents one of the few chemicals that public water utilities add to the water supply in an effort to affect human health.
The proposed legislation includes Bill S-959 in the NJ Senate and Assembly Bill 1811. It will require New Jersey cities to add the chemical fluoride to the public water systems.
With research showing the detrimental effects that fluoride has on kidneys, in June of 2008 the National Kidney Foundation was forced to dropped it’s support for fluoridation of public water systems. Previously, in 1981, the NKF had written that there was insufficient evidence to recommend removing fluoride from drinking water. The 2008 retraction was a small step in the right direction for public health.
Unfortunately, the New Jersey legislature seems to be ignoring more recent scientific studies in favor of a strange policy to force the ingestion of the chemical fluoride by many thousands of New Jersey residents, including small children and infants.
Here at Top Secret Writers, we’ve covered public fluoridation policies before. For example in May, Jim provided a preliminary view of the dangers that fluoridation poses to communities throughout the U.S. – including lowered-IQ scores in children, the US CDC report of a 9% increase in dental fluorosis since 1987, and the NKF admission of a potential link between fluoride and kidney damage.
In December, Kathleen examined some of the latest research that could potentially link fluoride ingestion to symptoms of Fibromyalgia.
In April of 2011, I interviewed an activist by the name of Golda Starr, who reports that she was able to completely reverse the symptoms related to her failing kidneys be removing all fluoride from her diet – and in particular by avoiding drinking her tap water, which came from a fluoridated public water system.
While scientists are still working diligently to provide a clear and inarguable connection directly linking public fluoridation of water to illnesses like kidney failure, most communities throughout the world have already recognized the overwhelming case against fluoridation of public drinking water.
The fact that the New Jersey Senate is moving forward with a new fluoridation program, despite the fact that other communities across the world are looking at removing fluoride from drinking water, betrays a certain level of scientific ignorance on the part of lawmakers. That ignorance is scary, considering they are responsible for protecting the public health.
Skeptics that argue fluoridation isn’t dangerous point to the fact that many communities “regulate” fluoride by also reducing levels of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water.
This argument is deceptive, because it combines the practice of removing harmful chemicals from the water supply with the practice of intentionally adding chemicals to the water supply.
It ignores the fact that public water utilities have, and will continue, to remove harmful chemicals – as the case for doing this has always been strong. However, adding fluoride to the water supply is not supported by sound science – which shows that the only true dental benefit to fluoride is the external application of fluoride, such as by using (and then spitting out) fluoridated toothpaste.
It also ignores the science that even the NKF now recognizes – showing that there is enough of a potential scientific link between fluoride and kidney damage, that the Foundation removed it’s support for public fluoridation. Clearly, there’s a very real danger.
Author Paul Connett, who wrote “The Case Against Fluoride”, has thrown in his support for the citizen groups that are fighting the New Jersey Bill. In a press release, he describes the results of his own research into fluoridation.
“Even promoters of fluoridation now agree that fluoride works through contact with the tooth surface rather than by incorporation into developing enamel. So this dispute comes down to whether the government should put fluoride into everyone’s water so that fluoride might eventually end up in the saliva to deliver this topical action or whether people should apply it themselves using fluoridated toothpaste. The first approach exposes every tissue of the body to a toxic substance and the second approach avoids that and also avoids forcing it upon people who don’t want it.”
The dangers to children in New Jersey from this potential legislation can not be understated. In a fluoride toxicology review by the National Research Council in 2006, it was revealed that there are very real effects on the thyroid and the ability of fluoride to damage the brain.
Connett reports that no less than 25 studies have shown that fluoride can lower a child’s IQ at levels as low as 1.9ppm. The safety of margin between the level in drinking water and the potential for brain damage is frighteningly small.
The Fluoride Action Network and other activists are calling for the New Jersey legislation to wait for the EPA’s latest health risk assessment regarding the maximum level of fluoride allowed in drinking water, before making a final decision.
Anti-fluoride activists are hopeful that the EPA is likely to conclude that no fluoride is considered safe in public drinking water.
 Fluoridation As a Potential Cause of Fibromyalgia Symptoms Fibromyalgia is a debilitating disease that is difficult to diagnose because Fibromyalgia symptoms can… |
 The Hidden Truth About Fluoride Danger in American Water You are instructed to brush your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, and then to spit it out into the… |
The Fluoride Detective Speaks Up Against Fluoridation Last month, Jim wrote a powerful article about what signs point toward the possibility of a new American… |
Last month, Jim wrote a powerful article about what signs point toward the possibility of a new American Revolution on the horizon.
One of the signs Jim pointed to was the tendency of U.S. industry to inflict their products upon the population in a premature manner – before sufficient testing can be finished as to the effects those products have on humans.
One specific example was outlined in a section of Jim’s article titled “The Fluoridation of America.”
The response was overwhelming. A number of readers Tweeted, Facebooked and even sent me direct emails about their own personal experiences dealing with the inappropriate (and many would say unnecessary) fluoridation of the U.S. public water supply.
One such reader was Golda Starr, a self-described survivor of water fluoridation. On her website, Fluoride Detective, Golda shares her personal experience about having “fluoridated kidneys,” how she prevented kidney failure by avoiding the ingestion of fluoride.
As a medical social worker, the realization that fluoride was what caused her medical problems ticked her off.
She is now on a mission to explore and identify the cause of this continued fluoridation of our country, and to once and for all put an end to what essentially could amount to the slow poisoning of millions of Americans – including children – with what is essentially an industrial waste product. It is good for the teeth – on the teeth – but not good when ingested.
I asked Golda for her story, and what inspired her to start a blog about her experiences. The following is Golda’s response, which she agreed to have published on Top Secret Writers.
Golda Starr out speaks against fluoridation:
About a year and a half ago after doing some lab tests, my doctor mentioned that I had sluggish kidneys, but nothing to worry about, she said.
We’d test them again in the future for any changes. Nine months later it was markedly worse. I was toward the lower end of 3rd stage kidney disease.
This is when I woke up and grabbed the reins of my own care. Making it worse, my doctor claimed to have no idea on improving my kidneys function and simply told me to see a nephrologist.
Since the nephrologists were booked ahead for two months, I set about doing my own research while I waited for my apppointment.
In researching, I found that kidney function doesn’t usually get better. Once the numbers start declining, we just wait for the inevitable – kidney dialysis.
The fact that I eat healthy foods, almost never resorting to fast foods or prepared foods, made me especially confused by this diagnosis. Also, I’ve been aware of environmental toxins for years and do my best to live clean: using organic personal care products and non-toxic household products. I’m not diabetic and don’t have high blood pressure.
How I could have ended up in 3rd stage kidney disease just wasn’t adding up – until I found out that fluoride is especially bad for poorly functioning kidneys. Because of not operating at full capacity, kidneys are able to excrete less and less fluoride.
And of course that means the fluoride accumulates and causes the kidneys to continually decline further.
Interesting idea. Yes, my water was fluoridated. Yes a few years earlier when I had kidney stones, a nephrologist and my personal doctor told me to drink up to 3 liters of water daily, every day. I tried.
I kept reading, and bumped into yet another piece of information that further confounded the issue. Green and black teas are probably the highest fluoride containing consumables that exist. Yikes. I thoroughly used 3-4 tea bags of green or black tea daily.
I thought it was good for me in my quest to avoid coffee.
So, with this fluoride information, I quit drinking fluoridated water and all green and black teas immediately.
In two months, when I did finally make it to a nephrologist, my GFR had improved by 32%. In two more months it had improved by 90% – and was well into the normal range.
Before seeing the drastically improved test results, the nephrologist had told me there was nothing I could do to improve my kidney functioning; no special diet other than holding down to a moderate amount of protein; no lifestyle change; no medication or supplements; nothing to add or subtract from my life.
One thing she did want to do was put me on a beta blocker, but because I have LOW blood pressure instead of high, even that bandaid was not possible. Essentially this was just a waiting game for the time when I’d need dialysis.
But even while she spoke, my kidneys were improving. And they were improving because I eliminated all known sources of fluoride – and they have stayed improved. For me, that’s proof enough that fluoride and kidneys cannot be friends.
While studying about fluoride and kidneys, I learned about the long list of health problems that fluoride causes. I pondered the thousands of people I’ve interviewed in the course of my work, many of whom are disabled with one illness or another.
Over twenty years ago, when I began working as a medical social worker, a typical client was an 88 year old woman with arthritis who simply was having difficulty managing alone in her home. Having a “young” client under 60 years of age was an oddity.
In recent years that’s changed. I estimate that overall about 40% of my clients are under 60 and have a wide range of illnesses – illness which a dozen years ago were considered much more uncommon in the “young”.
I can’t help but wonder how much of this decline in general health results from pumping poisonous fluoride directly into people through the water supply.
I wondered about the large number of kidney dialysis centers that have popped up over the past 15 years. In a 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal by Anya Martin, she notes:
“Dialysis treatment costs Medicare almost $72,000 per patient per year; total outlays for patients in kidney failure were $23 billion in 2006, 6.4% of Medicare’s total budget. Overall chronic kidney disease and its complications account for over $49 billion, or about 25%, of all annual Medicare expenditures.”
She goes on to say, “DaVita Inc. … , the nation’s largest provider with 1,400 centers, ranks No. 433 on the 2009 Fortune 500 list” (with reported 2008 revenues of $5.7 billion and profits of $374.2 million.) Since then, DaVita has risen in 2010 to No. 355 on the 2010 FORTUNE 500.
With chronic kidney disease being that pervasive of an issue, one would think that the AMA or the National Kidney Foundation would speak up with information well known to them about the effect that fluoride has on those with chronic kidney disease. But they don’t.
Doctors, nephrologists and naturopaths alike are unaware of the effects of fluoride on kidneys. And why they don’t know of fluoride’s effect on kidneys is more than curious.
In 2008, the National Kidney Foundation even made a statement that people with reduced kidney function should avoid fluoride. In 2006 the National Research Council said that people with lowered kidney function should avoid fluoride. But nephrologists are unaware of this? Why is that the case?
Professionally, I assess people’s functional and medical issues, including any dietary restrictions they may have.
I have never heard of a kidney patient being told to avoid fluoridated water and other products high in fluoride. And I personally was not told. I find that shocking.
I have to ask myself why is fluoride put in the water when it has a long litany of proven negative health effects.
Why are people, including doctors, uninformed of how it effects those with failing kidneys? Why are we not informed that fluoride can actually cause kidney problems in the first place? (Xiong X, et al. (2006).
Dose-effect relationship between drinking water fluoride levels and damage to liver and kidney functions in children. Environmental Research Jul 8; [Epub ahead of print]).
All of this occurs while many, many millions of dollars are being made each year by businesses treating those with kidney disease. Makes one wonder.
The fact that most of us in the United States are being dosed with fluoridated water and increasingly suffering the consequences, saddens me. Yes, a plethora of information is available about what fluoride is doing to us, about valid research done on the topic for many, many years.
However, somehow the general public is not finding that information and is remaining beguiled by the simplistic and untrue chant that fluoride is good for your teeth.
How can we break through that brainwashing that we’ve all been exposed to since birth?
That’s the basic issue at hand now.
|
Fluoridation As a Potential Cause of Fibromyalgia Symptoms Fibromyalgia is a debilitating disease that is difficult to diagnose because Fibromyalgia symptoms can… |
New Jersey Ignores Fluoride Dangers in New Legislation On February 11th, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), a citizen watchdog… |
The Hidden Truth About Fluoride Danger in American Water You are instructed to brush your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, and then to spit it out into the… |
After sponsoring a bill that mandates fluoridation of public water supplies (Senate Bill 359/Act 197 of 2011, Regular Session), Arkansas Senator David Johnson (D) receives $7,500 in campaign donations over two months from dentists:
10/13/11 – Arkansas Dental Political Action Committee, $1,000
11/17/11 – Arkansas Dental PAC, $500
11/23/11 – DBH Management Consultants (represents Delta Dental of Arkansas), $2,000
12/30/11 – Scott Bolding (dentist and investor), $2,000
12/30/11 – Oral & Facial Surgery Center, $2,000
Source: Arkansas Secretary of State
Senator Johnson’s profile page
Is there money to be made from fluoridation?
A study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association suggests that dentists in fluoridated areas earned larger gross and net incomes.
See 41-3: “Impact of Water Fluoridation on Dental Practice and Dental Manpower” from the Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972, pp. 355-367
“Dentists in fluoride-deficient communities appear to be busier in their practices than dentists in fluoridated communities, who feel less overworked and spend more time on each patient. Dentists in fluoridated communities earned larger gross and net incomes in 1965, even with degree of specialization, effort, etc., held constant. The differential persisted, even though it was reduced in a 1967 income survey. Fluoridation appears to extend the existing pool of dental manpower to cover a substantially larger population – Copyright 1973, Biological Abstracts, Inc.
Securing the blessings of liberty,
Ten million dogs can’t be wrong
SAN DIEGO — Almost hidden in the northern hills, the pilot water treatment plant here does not seem a harbinger of revolution. It cost $13 million, uses long-established technologies and produces a million gallons a day.
But the plant’s very existence is a triumph over one of the most stubborn problems facing the nation’s water managers: if they make clean drinking water from wastewater, will the yuck factor keep people from accepting it?
With climate change threatening to diminish water supplies in the fast-growing Southwest, more cities are considering the potential of reclaimed water. A new report from the National Academy of Sciences said that if coastal communities used advanced treatment procedures on the effluent that is now sent out to sea, it could increase the amount of municipal water available by as much as 27 percent.
San Diego’s success, 12 years after its City Council recoiled from the toilet-to-tap concept, offers a blueprint for other districts considering wastewater reuse.
For most of the four decades beginning in 1970, the arid West was the fastest-growing region in the country; the population of Nevada quintupled in that period while Arizona’s nearly quadrupled. Continued population growth, unmatched by growth in water storage capacity, makes this a “new era in water management in the United States,” the science group’s report said.
“The pressures on water supplies are changing virtually every aspect of municipal, industrial, and agricultural water practice,” it said.
Back in 1998, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, issued a study finding that supplementing stream flows or reservoirs with this water, a process called indirect potable reuse, was acceptable, although only as a last resort. Now, acceptance of reclaimed water for drinking is spreading, if slowly.
Funneling reclaimed water into water supplies is being considered in a variety of communities like Miami and Denver (which has experimented with the technology), as well as in drought-ravaged municipalities in Texas like Big Spring. The tiny mountain resort town of Cloudcroft, N.M., mingles reclaimed water with local well water. In Northern Virginia, reclaimed water has flowed into the Occoquan Reservoir for three decades.
Still, just one-tenth of 1 percent of municipal wastewater nationally was recycled into local supplies in 2010. Only a handful of systems replenish their reservoirs or groundwater basins with treated wastewater.
The largest is in Orange County, Calif., about 100 miles north of San Diego, where a four-year-old system replenishes the groundwater basin with 70 million gallons of treated effluent daily — about 20 percent of the content of the aquifer. Other sites include El Paso and some areas around Los Angeles.
Edmund Archuleta, the president of El Paso Water Utilities, said in an interview that his city recycled all of its wastewater. Most is used for things like cooling industrial plants or watering playing fields, he said, but “it’s been accepted that we’re recharging some of that water into the aquifer” and into the Rio Grande.
Globally, the largest population center to adopt the technology is Singapore, home to five million people. Officials say about 15 percent of its water originates from treated effluent, marketed as “NEWater.” Most is used for irrigation or manufacturing; some for drinking.
The original technology for recycling wastewater was developed in the 1950s — involving chemical disinfection, carbon-filtration treatment or both — and is in use on the International Space Station. The bulk of recycled water is used on lawns or golf courses, in factories or as an underground barrier against seawater intrusion.
The newest iteration, in use in Orange County, is a three-step process involving fewer chemicals and more filtering.
First, wastewater is filtered through string-like microfibers with holes smaller than bacteria and protozoa. Then it goes through reverse osmosis, an energy-intensive process forcing the water through plastic membranes that remove most molecules that are not water. Finally, it is dosed with hydrogen peroxide and exposed to ultraviolet light, a double-disinfectant process. The result is roughly equivalent to distilled water, Orange County officials say.
After touring the $481 million plant in Orange County, visitors are offered a glass of the water. Is it safe? The new National Academy analysis suggests that the risk from potable reuse “does not appear to be any higher, and may be orders of magnitude lower” than any risk from conventional treatment. There are currently no national standards for water reuse processes, only for drinking-water quality.
Of course, the treatment process is much more expensive than tapping local groundwater — in Southern California, about 60 percent more, and in El Paso about four times more. But to remain sustainable, groundwater must be used sparingly. Orange County’s reclaimed water costs $1.80 per thousand gallons when regional water subsidies are factored in. This is similar to what it pays to import either Colorado River water or water from Northern California. Without the benefit of subsidies, reclaimed water’s cost was just 14 percent less than desalinated water’s, which experts say requires 3 to 10 times the energy output.
The bigger hurdle to public acceptance may be psychological. Carol Nemeroff, a psychologist at the University of Southern Maine, said the notion of treated sewage “hooks into the intuitive concept of contagion” and contamination. To overcome this, she said, a city must “unhook the current water from its history.” That proved to be the case in 1998 in San Diego when the water department’s initiative was derided as “toilet to tap” during a bruising City Council campaign. Council members refused to allow further discussion of it.
A 2004 poll commissioned by the San Diego County Water Authority found that 63 percent of respondents opposed reuse. Then the water department began reaching out to customers with discussion groups and public meetings. Members of the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental group, reminded residents that almost every municipal wastewater plant practices water reuse anyway, since discharged treated wastewater is reused downstream.
“It isn’t toilet to tap. It’s toilet to treatment to treatment to treatment to tap,” said Belinda Smith, a Surfrider volunteer.
Water shortages and rationing, however, did the most to change attitudes. San Diego’s annual rainfall meets about 15 percent of its needs, and the city’s water managers grew worried that as California reeled from droughts, they could have trouble importing water.
In 2009, the third year of a severe drought, Mayor Jerry Sanders met with biotechnology industry executives who told him that water shortages posed a threat to their businesses. “They were talking about moving away from San Diego,” he said.
So the mayor quietly switched sides, and the City Council fell into line. “If science is behind you and you can prove that, I think people are willing to listen,” Mr. Sanders said in an interview. “The public is worried about scarcity.”
Marsi Steirer, the deputy director of San Diego’s public utility agency, said it now estimated that by 2020 or so, recycled wastewater could account for 7 percent of the total in the city’s main reservoir.
Some people are still put off. Virginia Soderberg, 91, president of the Convair Garden Club in San Diego, called reclaimed water “the end of the world. I wouldn’t even want my cat to drink it.”
But a 2011 poll by the utility showed that local opposition to reuse had dropped to 25 percent.
The change of heart found voice on the editorial page of The San Diego Union-Tribune, a onetime opponent, in an editorial titled “The Yuck Factor: Get Over It.”
That sentiment was echoed in a cartoon on a California public radio blog depicting a dog with its nose in a toilet.
The caption? “Ten million dogs can’t be wrong.”
***
From James: An unmentioned problem with turning toilet water into drinking water is that the lithium waste in water is not removed.
As readers may know by now, 49 of 50 states have agreed to join the so-called mortgage settlement, with Oklahoma the lone refusenik. Although the fine points are still being hammered out, various news outlets (New York Times, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal) have details, with Dave Dayen’s overview at Firedoglake the best thus far.
The Wall Street Journal is also reporting that the SEC is about to launch some securities litigation against major banks. Since the statue of limitations has already run out on securities filings more than five years old, this means they’ll clip the banks for some of the very last (and dreckiest) deals they shoved out the door before the subprime market gave up the ghost.
The various news services are touting this pact at the biggest multi-state settlement since the tobacco deal in 1998. While narrowly accurate, this deal is bush league by comparison even though the underlying abuses in both cases have had devastating consequences.
The tobacco agreement was pegged as being worth nearly $250 billion over the first 25 years. Adjust that for inflation, and the disparity is even bigger. That shows you the difference in outcomes between a case where the prosecutors have solid evidence backing their charges, versus one where everyone know a lot of bad stuff happened, but no one has come close to marshaling the evidence.
The mortgage settlement terms have not been released, but more of the details have been leaked:
1. The total for the top five servicers is now touted as $26 billion (annoyingly, the FT is calling it “nearly $40 billion”), but of that, roughly $17 billion is credits for principal modifications, which as we pointed out earlier, can and almost assuredly will come largely from mortgages owned by investors. $3 billion is for refis, and only $5 billion will be in the form of hard cash payments, including $1500 to $2000 per borrower foreclosed on between September 2008 and December 2011.
Banks will be required to modify second liens that sit behind firsts “at least” pari passu, which in practice will mean at most pari passu. So this guarantees banks will also focus on borrowers where they do not have second lien exposure, and this also makes the settlement less helpful to struggling homeowners, since borrowers with both second and first liens default at much higher rates than those without second mortgages. Per the Journal:
“It’s not new money. It’s all soft dollars to the banks,” said Paul Miller, a bank analyst at FBR Capital Markets.
The Times is also subdued:
Despite the billions earmarked in the accord, the aid will help a relatively small portion of the millions of borrowers who are delinquent and facing foreclosure. The success could depend in part on how effectively the program is carried out because earlier efforts by Washington aimed at troubled borrowers helped far fewer than had been expected.
2. Schneiderman’s MERS suit survives, and he can add more banks as defendants. It isn’t clear what became of the Biden and Coakley MERS suits, but Biden sounded pretty adamant in past media presentations on preserving that.
3. Nevada’s and Arizona’s suits against Countrywide for violating its past consent decree on mortgage servicing has, in a new Orwellianism, been “folded into” the settlement.
4. The five big players in the settlement have already set aside reserves sufficient for this deal.
Here are the top twelve reasons why this deal stinks:
1. We’ve now set a price for forgeries and fabricating documents. It’s $2000 per loan. This is a rounding error compared to the chain of title problem these systematic practices were designed to circumvent. The cost is also trivial in comparison to the average loan, which is roughly $180k, so the settlement represents about 1% of loan balances. It is less than the price of the title insurance that banks failed to get when they transferred the loans to the trust. It is a fraction of the cost of the legal expenses when foreclosures are challenged. It’s a great deal for the banks because no one is at any of the servicers going to jail for forgery and the banks have set the upper bound of the cost of riding roughshod over 300 years of real estate law.
2. That $26 billion is actually $5 billion of bank money and the rest is your money. The mortgage principal writedowns are guaranteed to come almost entirely from securitized loans, which means from investors, which in turn means taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie, pension funds, insurers, and 401 (k)s. Refis of performing loans also reduce income to those very same investors.
3. That $5 billion divided among the big banks wouldn’t even represent a significant quarterly hit. Freddie and Fannie putbacks to the major banks have been running at that level each quarter.
4. That $20 billion actually makes bank second liens sounder, so this deal is a stealth bailout that strengthens bank balance sheets at the expense of the broader public.
5. The enforcement is a joke. The first layer of supervision is the banks reporting on themselves. The framework is similar to that of the OCC consent decrees implemented last year, which Adam Levitin and yours truly, among others, decried as regulatory theater.
6. The past history of servicer consent decrees shows the servicers all fail to comply. Why? Servicer records and systems are terrible in the best of times, and their systems and fee structures aren’t set up to handle much in the way of delinquencies. As Tom Adams has pointed out in earlier posts, servicer behavior is predictable when their portfolios are hit with a high level of delinquencies and defaults: they cheat in all sorts of ways to reduce their losses.
7. The cave-in Nevada and Arizona on the Countrywide settlement suit is a special gift for Bank of America, who is by far the worst offender in the chain of title disaster (since, according to sworn testimony of its own employee in Kemp v. Countrywide, Countrywide failed to comply with trust delivery requirements). This move proves that failing to comply with a consent degree has no consequences but will merely be rolled into a new consent degree which will also fail to be enforced. These cases also alleged HAMP violations as consumer fraud violations and could have gotten costly and emboldened other states to file similar suits not just against Countrywide but other servicers, so it was useful to the other banks as well.
8. If the new Federal task force were intended to be serious, this deal would have not have been settled. You never settle before investigating. It’s a bad idea to settle obvious, widespread wrongdoing on the cheap. You use the stuff that is easy to prove to gather information and secure cooperation on the stuff that is harder to prove. In Missouri and Nevada, the robosigning investigation led to criminal charges against agents of the servicers. But even though these companies were acting at the express direction and approval of the services, no individuals or entities higher up the food chain will face any sort of meaningful charges.
9. There is plenty of evidence of widespread abuses that appear not to be on the attorney generals’ or media’s radar, such as servicer driven foreclosures and looting of investors’ funds via impermissible and inflated charges. While no serious probe was undertaken, even the limited or peripheral investigations show massive failures (60% of documents had errors in AGs/Fed’s pathetically small sample). Similarly, the US Trustee’s office found widespread evidence of significant servicer errors in bankruptcy-related filings, such as inflated and bogus fees, and even substantial, completely made up charges. Yet the services and banks will suffer no real consequences for these abuses.
10. A deal on robosiginging serves to cover up the much deeper chain of title problem. And don’t get too excited about the New York, Massachusetts, and Delaware MERS suits. They put pressure on banks to clean up this monstrous mess only if the AGs go through to trial and get tough penalties. The banks will want to settle their way out of that too. And even if these cases do go to trial and produce significant victories for the AGs, they still do not address the problem of failures to transfer notes correctly.
11. Don’t bet on a deus ex machina in terms of the new Federal foreclosure task force to improve this picture much. If you think Schneiderman, as a co-chairman who already has a full time day job in New York, is going to outfox a bunch of DC insiders who are part of the problem, I have a bridge I’d like to sell to you.
12. We’ll now have to listen to banks and their sycophant defenders declaring victory despite being wrong on the law and the facts. They will proceed to marginalize and write off criticisms of the servicing practices that hurt homeowners and investors and are devastating communities. But the problems will fester and the housing market will continue to suffer. Investors in mortgage-backed securities, who know that services have been screwing them for years, will be hung out to dry and will likely never return to a private MBS market, since the problems won’t ever be fixed. This settlement has not only revealed the residential mortgage market to be too big to fail, but puts it on long term, perhaps permanent, government life support.
As we’ve said before, this settlement is yet another raw demonstration of who wields power in America, and it isn’t you and me. It’s bad enough to see these negotiations come to their predictable, sorry outcome. It adds insult to injury to see some try to depict it as a win for long suffering, still abused homeowners.
Watsonville so far seems to be able to sidestep the California mandate (illegal) that each water district of a certain size fluoridate.
Read details here:
http://fluoride-class-action.com/districts/usa/california/watsonville
From: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ron072754
Sent: February-06-12 4:22 AM
To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FluoridePoisoning] strict liability city counselors
I googled “strict liability city counselors” just trying to find out if cities can be heald responsible harm to anything, you know just digging around for info. The top hit was about Pittsburgh. they were trying to stop fracking. Seems fracking is about as safe as fluoridation. Still don’t know if cities or councilors can be liable for harm. But take a read!
CELDF Press Release: Pittsburgh Council Votes to Ban Upstream Poisoning of City Residents and the Environment Caused by Corporations Fracking for Shale Gas
by CELDF
December 20th, 2011
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
Pennsylvania Community Rights Network
P.O. Box 360
Mercersburg, PA 17236
www.celdf.org
Pittsburgh Council Votes to Ban Upstream Poisoning of City Residents and the Environment Caused by Corporations Fracking for Shale Gas
“It’s not okay to poison residents of our city, even if you have a permit issued by the State to do it.” – Councilman Doug Shields
MEDIA RELEASE
December 19, 2011
CONTACT: Ben Price, (717) 254-3233
benprice@celdf.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Monday, December 19, 2011- Pittsburgh, PA) Following hours of business before the Pittsburgh City Council, a measure introduced by Councilman Doug Shields on November 14th to ban municipal and state governments from licensing and permitting corporations to dump toxins from fracking activities into the environment that result in violations of rights recognized in City law by the new ordinance and by the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance banning corporate gas drilling on November 16th, 2010, came to a vote today, and gained the majority.
The ordinance was adopted by a 5-4 vote and now goes to the mayor. He has 10 days in which to act with a veto, or barring that action the measure will become law on December 29, 2011. The law, known as Chapter 619 of the City Code, Article VI, under CONDUCT: “Toxic Trespass Resulting from Unconventional Natural Gas Drilling” makes it illegal to deposit toxic substances or potentially toxic substances within the body of any resident of Pittsburgh, or into any natural community or ecosystem…as the result of activities prohibited by…Ordinances of the City, or through negligent actions which result in a violation of any provision of this ordinance…[such actions are] declared a form of trespass, and [are] hereby prohibited.
The ordinance further legislates that “Corporations and persons using corporations to engage in natural gas extraction or to support the activity of natural gas extraction, in a neighboring municipality, county or state shall be strictly liable for the violation of rights recognized by this ordinance, and for all harms consequently caused to natural water sources, ecosystems, human and natural communities within the City of Pittsburgh and its jurisdiction. Government agencies and municipalities that issue permits or allow unconventional extraction of natural gas within their municipality shall be held liable for the violation of the rights of Pittsburgh residents, ecosystems, and natural communities if a toxic trespass results.”
As did the November 16th 2010 Pittsburgh Ordinance banning extraction of gas by corporations, this Toxic Trespass Ordinance subordinates the legally bestowed privileges of corporations to the inalienable, indefeasible rights of people and living systems. The newly adopted ordinance makes law these provisions:
Corporations in violation of the rights of human and natural communities, and ecosystems, within Pittsburgh shall not have the rights of “persons” afforded by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, nor shall those corporations be afforded the protections of the First or Fifth amendments to the United States Constitutions or corresponding provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, or the commerce or contracts clauses within the United States Constitution or corresponding sections of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
And….
Corporations in violation of the rights of human and natural communities, or ecosystems, within Pittsburgh shall not possess the authority or power to enforce State or federal preemptive law against the people of the City of Pittsburgh, or to challenge or overturn municipal ordinances adopted by the City Council of Pittsburgh.
To clarify the supremacy of rights-as-law over corporate privilege and over state authority to license corporations to violate rights and empower them to act “legally” against the consent of the governed, the Toxic Trespass Ordinance asserts that:
No permit, license, privilege or charter issued by any State or federal agency… to any person or any corporation operating under a State charter…which would violate the prohibitions of this Ordinance or deprive any City resident(s), natural community, or ecosystem of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this Ordinance, the Pennsylvania Constitution, the United States Constitution, or other laws, shall be deemed valid within the City of Pittsburgh.
Persons, corporations, and other entities engaged in the manufacture, generation, sale, mining, distribution, application, transportation, use or disposal of toxic or potentially toxic substances used in unconventional natural gas extraction and detected within the body of any resident of Pittsburgh or within any natural community or ecosystem within the City shall be strictly liable for the deposition of toxic substances and potentially toxic substances into the bodies of residents of the City and within natural communities and ecosystems within the City.
Persons, corporations, and other entities…shall be deemed strictly liable if one of their toxic or potentially toxic substances is discovered within the body of a City resident or within any natural community or ecosystem within the City. The municipality’s showing of the existence of that substance within the body of a resident living in the City or within a natural community or ecosystems within the City, and the municipality’s showing that the Defendant(s) are responsible for the manufacture, generation, sale, mining, distribution, application, transportation, use or disposal of that substance within the City or migrating into the City, shall constitute a prime facie showing of causation under a strict liability standard. Current and future damages resulting from the these parties’ trespass shall be assumed, and the burden of proof shall shift to the culpable parties for a showing that the substance could not cause harm or contribute to causing harm, either alone or in combination with other factors, or that the parties are not responsible for the trespass of that particular substance into the body of residents of the City or within a natural community or ecosystem within the City.
The bill was drafted by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund at the invitation of Council members.
Ben Price, Projects Director for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, said he applauds the Council members for again taking a stand on behalf of community rights. “There is nothing more important for a municipal government than to step in and protect rights that the State cavalierly assumes it can negotiate away.”
Price further commented that “the struggle for civil rights has moved again to the community level. When the State licenses our abusers and our oppressors, it’s time to go local and assert our rights right here where we live. What a historic moment to see the City of Pittsburgh embrace and stand up for the will and movement of the People once again.”
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, located in Mercesburg, has been working with people in Pennsylvania since 1995 to assert their fundamental rights to democratic local self-governance, and to enact laws which end destructive and rights-denying corporate action aided and abetted by state and federal governments.
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
From: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aliss
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:54 AM
To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [FluoridePoisoning] strict liability city counselors
I highly recommend the documentary “Gasland”. The frackers got EPA to exempt chemicals in the fracking fluid from having to comply with the safe drinking water act.
Aliss
2-6-12
Aliss
Just how it happened that EPA lost jurisdiction over fracking water is something I would like to know.
I have read that EPA is starting to assert jurisdiction over fracking.
To the greatest extent possible, we should leave the minierals where they are. Instead we are digging them up and spreading them out on the surface of the globe.
Anything that can be done solar, green, without petroleum, without nuclear, organic should be done organic.
Our agencies have been perverted by the matrix companies that are out to maximize profits, ethics be damned.
James
JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesRobertDeal.com
February 7, 2012
Simplot Phosphates LLC Attention: Legal Department 515 South Hwy 430 Rock Springs WY 82901
Dear Legal Department,
I am writing to you to express concern regarding the health and safety of the industrial grade fluorosilicic acid which Simplot sells to the City of Everett and to ask questions regarding the same.
My interest in this matter is personal. I reside in Lynnwood Washington. Lynnwood is a “captive” water district of Everett, meaning that it buys water from Everett and delivers it to my home, including Simplot’s industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. Lynnwood never voted to have industrial grade fluorosilicic acid added to our water, and we would like it out.
To read the rest of this letter follow this link.
Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls.
New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – bet-ween the ages of 10 and 19.
In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent tooth decay in children.
About 10 per cent of the population, six million people, receive fluoridated water, mainly in the Midlands and north-east, and the government plans to extend this, with Manchester expected to be next. About 170 million Americans live in areas with fluoridated water.
The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. It was the first examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical period of a child’s development and the age of onset of bone cancer.
Although osteosarcoma is rare, accounting for only about 3 per cent of childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have limbs amputated, usually legs.
The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a ‘strong body of peer-reviewed evidence’ and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
‘This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,’ said Richard Wiles, the group’s co-founder. ‘When you focus in and look for the incidence of tumours, you see the increase.
‘We recognise the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,’ added Wiles, ‘but I’ve spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don’t have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.’
Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones and in the pineal gland in the brain, although more than 90 per cent is taken into the bones.
MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals in Parliament include Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.
Anti-fluoride campaigners argue that the whole issue has become highly politically sensitive. If health scares about fluoride were to be recognised in the courts, the litigation, especially in the US, could be expected to run for decades. Consequently, scientists have been inhibited from publicising any adverse findings.
The new evidence only emerged by a circuitous process. It was contained in a Harvard dissertation by Dr Elise Bassin at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The dissertation, completed in April 2001, obviously had merit because Bassin was awarded her doctorate.
However it has not been published. Environmental organisations were repeatedly denied access to it, and even bodies such as the US National Academy of Sciences could not get hold of a copy. Eventually two researchers from the Fluoride Action Network were allowed to read it in the rare books and special collections room at Harvard medical library.
Bassin told The Observer her work was still going through the peer-review process, and she hopes that it will then be published.
Dr Vyvyan Howard, senior lecturer in toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool, has studied the new material.
‘At these ages the bones of boys are developing rapidly,’ he said, ‘so if the bones are being put together abnormally because fluoride is altering the bone structure, they’re more likely to get cancer. It’s biologically plausible, and the epidemiological evidence seems pretty strong – it looks as if there’s a definite effect.’
There is at present no understanding as to why males should be affected rather than females.
A Department of Health spokesman said that the latest evaluation of research in the UK had identified no ill effects of fluoride.
Department of Health and Human Services