How Corporations Like Monsanto Have Hijacked Higher Education

By Jill Richardson, AlterNet
Posted on May 11, 2012, Printed on May 19, 2012

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..

© 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/155375/

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.

(7)  http://www.scribd.com/doc/90723635/Fluoride-Sensitivity-Aliss-and-Deloss-tell-their-stories-plus-References

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:

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 3^rd 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

Palisade Eliminates Fluoride From Drinking Water

by KREX News Room
by Amanda Brandeis

Thanks to KREX TV.

http://www.krextv.com/news/around-the-region/No-More-Flouride-to-be-Added-to-Palisade-Water-151659335.html

 

 

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.

The Effects Of Fluoride On
The Thyroid Gland
By Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRCS
Medical Advisor to Thyroid UK
9-9-4 

There is a daunting amount of research studies showing that the widely acclaimed benefits on fluoride dental health are more imagined than real. My main concern however, is the effect of sustained fluoride intake on general health. Again, there is a huge body of research literature on this subject, freely available and in the public domain.   But this body of work was not considered by the York Review when their remit was changed from “Studies of the effects of fluoride on health” to “Studies on the effects of fluoridated water on health.” It is clearly evident that it was not considered by the BMA (Britsh Medical Association), British Dental Association (BDA), BFS (British Fluoridation Society) and FPHM, (Faculty for Public Health and Medicine) since they all insist, as in the briefing paper to Members of Parliament – that fluoridation is safe and non-injurious to health.   This is a public disgrace, I will now show by reviewing the damaging effects of fluoridation, with special reference to thyroid illness.   It has been known since the latter part of the 19th century that certain communities, notably in Argentina, India and Turkey were chronically ill, with premature ageing, arthritis, mental retardation, and infertility; and high levels of natural fluorides in the water were responsible. Not only was it clear that the fluoride was having a general effect on the health of the community, but in the early 1920s Goldemberg, working in Argentina showed that fluoride was displacing iodine; thus compounding the damage and rendering the community also hypothyroid from iodine deficiency.   Highly damaging to the thyroid gland   This was the basis of the research in the 1930s of May, Litzka, Gorlitzer von Mundy, who used fluoride preparations to treat over-active thyroid illness. Their patients either drank fluoridated water, swallowed fluoride pills or were bathed in fluoridated bath water; and their thyroid function was as a result, greatly depressed. The use in 1937 of fluorotyrosine for this purpose showed how effective this treatment was; but the effectiveness was difficult to predict and many patients suffered total thyroid loss. So it was given a new role and received a new name, Pardinon. It was marketed not for over-active thyroid disease but as a pesticide. (Note the manufacturer of fluorotyrosine was IG Farben who also made sarin, a gas used in World War II).     This bit of history illustrates the fact that fluorides are dangerous in general and in particular highly damaging to the thyroid gland, a matter to which I shall return shortly. While it is unlikely that it will be disputed that fluorides are toxic – let us be reminded that they are Schedule 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act 1972, the matter in dispute is the level of toxicity attributable to given amounts; in today’s context the degree of damage caused by given concentrations in the water supply. While admitting its toxicity, proponents rely on the fact that it is diluted and therefore, it is claimed, unlikely to have deleterious effects.   They could not be more mistaken   It seems to me that we must be aware of how fluoride does its damage. It is an enzyme poison. Enzymes are complex protein compounds that vastly speed up biological chemical reactions while themselves remaining unchanged. As we speak, there occurs in all of us a vast multitude of these reactions to maintain life and produce the energy to sustain it. The chains of amino acids that make up these complex proteins are linked by simple compounds called amides; and it is with these that fluorine molecules react, splitting and distorting them, thus damaging the enzymes and their activity. Let it be said at once, this effect can occur at extraordinary low concentrations; even lower than the one part per million which is the dilution proposed for fluoridation in our water supply.   The body can only eliminate half   Moreover, fluorides are cumulative and build up steadily with ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water but the air we breathe and the food we eat. The use of fluoride toothpaste in dental hygiene and the coating of teeth are further sources of substantial levels of fluoride intake. The body can only eliminate half of the total intake, which means that the older you are the more fluoride will have accumulated in your body. Inevitably this means the ageing population is particularly targeted. And even worse for the very young there is a major element of risk in baby formula made with fluoridated water. The extreme sensitivity of the very young to fluoride toxicity makes this unacceptable. Since there are so many sources of fluoride in our everyday living, it will prove impossible to maintain an average level of 1ppm as is suggested.   What is the result of these toxic effects?   First the immune system. The distortion of protein structure causes the immune proteins to fail to recognise body proteins, and so instigate an attack on them, which is Autoimmune Disease. Autoimmune diseases constitute a body of disease processes troubling many thousands of people: Rheumatoid Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosis, Asthma and Systemic Sclerosis are examples; but in my particular context today, thyroid antibodies will be produced which will cause Thyroiditis resulting in the common hypothyroid disease, Hashimoto’s Disease and the hyperthyroidism of Graves’ Disease.   Musculo Skeletal damage results further from the enzyme toxic effect; the collagen tissue of which muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones are made, is damaged. Rheumatoid illness, osteoporosis and deformation of bones inevitably follow. This toxic effect extends to the ameloblasts making tooth enamel, which is consequently weakened and then made brittle; and its visible appearance is, of course, dental fluorosis.   The enzyme poison effect extends to our genes; DNA cannot repair itself, and chromosomes are damaged. Work at the University of Missouri showed genital damage, targeting ovaries and testes. Also affected is inter uterine growth and development of the foetus, especially the nervous system. Increased incidence of Down’s Syndrome has been documented. Fluorides are mutagenic. That is, they can cause the uncontrolled proliferation of cells we call cancer. This applies to cancer anywhere in the body; but bones are particularly picked out. The incidence of osteosarcoma in a study reporting in 1991 showed an unbelievable 50% increase. A report in 1955 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed a 400% increase in cancer of the thyroid in San Francisco during the period their water was fluoridated.   My particular concern is the effect of fluorides on the thyroid gland   Perhaps I may remind you about thyroid disease. The thyroid gland produces hormones which control our metabolism – the rate at which we burn our fuel. Deficiency is relatively common, much more than is generally accepted by many medical authorities: a figure of 1:4 or 1:3 by mid life is more likely. The illness is insidious in its onset and progression. People become tired, cold, overweight, depressed, constipated; they suffer arthritis, hair loss, infertility, atherosclerosis and chronic illness. Sadly, it is poorly diagnosed and poorly managed by very many doctors in this country. What concerns me so deeply is that in concentrations as low as 1ppm, fluorides damage the thyroid system on 4 levels.   1. The enzyme manufacture of thyroid hormones within the thyroid gland itself. The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and liothyronine (T3), is slowed.   2. The stimulation of certain G proteins from the toxic effect of fluoride (whose function is to govern uptake of substances into each of the cells of the body), has the effect of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone.   3. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The thyroid stimulating hormone output from the pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus reducing thyroid output of thyroid hormones.   4. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to the thyroid stimulating hormone; so that less of this hormone reaches the thyroid gland and so less thyroid hormone is manufactured. These damaging effects, all of which occur with small concentrations of fluoride, have obvious and easily identifiable effects on thyroid status. The running down of thyroid hormone means a slow slide into hypothyroidism. Already the incidence of hypothyroidism is increasing as a result of other environmental toxins and pollutions together with wide spread nutritional deficiencies.   141 million Europeans are at risk   One further factor should give us deep anxiety. Professor Hume of Dundee, in his paper given earlier this year to the Novartis Foundation, pointed out that iodine deficiency is growing worldwide. There are 141 million Europeans are at risk; only 5 European countries are iodine sufficient. UK now falls into the marginal and focal category. Professor Hume recently produced figures to show that 40% of pregnant women in the Tayside region of Scotland were deficient by at least half of the iodine required for a normal pregnancy. A relatively high level of missing, decayed, filled teeth was noted in this non-fluoridated area, suggesting that the iodine deficiency was causing early hypothyroidism which interferes with the health of teeth. Dare one speculate on the result of now fluoridating the water?   Displaces iodine in the body   These figures would be worrying enough, since they mean that iodine deficiency, which results in hypothyroidism (thyroid hormone cannot be manufactured without iodine) is likely to affect huge numbers of people. What makes it infinitely worse, is that fluorine, being a halogen (chemically related to iodine), but very much more active, displaces iodine. So that the uptake of iodine is compromised by the ejection, as it were, of the iodine by fluorine. To condemn the entire population, already having marginal levels of iodine, to inevitable progressive failure of their thyroid system by fluoridating the water, borders on criminal lunacy. I would like to place a scenario in front of those colleagues who favour fluoridation. A new pill is marketed. Some trials not all together satisfactory, nevertheless, show a striking improvement in dental caries. Unfortunately, it has been found to be thyrotoxic, mutagenic, immunosuppressive, cause arthritis and infertility in comparatively small doses over a relatively short period of time.   Do you think it should be marketed? Fluoridation of the nation’s water supply will do little for our dental health; but will have catastrophic effects on our general health. We cannot, must not, dare not, subject our nation to this appalling risk.   Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield obtained his Medical degrees in 1960 at Guy’s Hospital London. He left the NHS in 1980 to specialise in thyroid illnesses drawing inspiration from the work of infamous Dr Broda Barnes, at the Foundation that bears his name, Connecticut, USA. He has been a medical practitioner for over forty years specialising in metabolic disorders during which time he became a leading authority in the UK for thyroid and adrenal management. For over twenty years he also ran a successful private clinic and became a nation-wide leading authority on thyroid and adrenal dysfunction, but clashed with establishment medicine in the management of thyroid illness. He is the author of The Great Thyroid Scandal (see opposite page), he currently lectures at nutritional colleges in London as well as conducting his own teaching seminars. Barry will shortly be opening a diagnostic clinic in the UK for thyroid and adrenal disorders where he will provide advice on diagnosis and treatment with special interests in nutritional aspects. For further information contact: Dr B Durrant- Peatfield 36A High St, Mersham, Redhill Surrey, RH1 3EA. Tel: 44 (0)1737 215462 <mailto:Email: info@drpeatfield.com>Email: info@drpeatfield.com Web site: http://www.drpeatfield.com References: L Goldemberg – La Semana Med 28:628 (1921) – cited in Wilson RH, DeEds F -”The Synergistic Action Of Thyroid On Fluoride Toxicity” Endocrinology 26:851 (1940).   G Litzka – “Die experimentellen Grundlagen der Behandlung des Morbus Basedow und der Hyperthyreose mittels Fluortyrosin” Med Wochenschr 63:1037-1040 (1937) (discusses the basis of the use of fluorides in anti-thyroid medication, documents activity on liver, inhibition of glycolysis, etc.).   W May – “Behandlung der Hypothyreosen einschlieblich des schweren genuinen Morbus Basedow mit Fluor” Klin Wochenschr 16: 562 – 564 (1937).   Sarin: (GB: isopropyl methylphosono-fluoridate) is a colorless, odorless volatile liquid, soluble in water, first synthesized at IG Farben in 1938. It kills mainly through inhalation.   Cyclosarin (GF) and Thiosarin are variants. Pennsylvania Department of Health http://www.dsf.health.state.pa.us/health/cwp/view.asp?a=171&q=233740   Sarin: (GB: CH3-P(=O)(-F)(-OCH(CH3)2) Source: A FOA Briefing Book on Chemical Weapons http://www.opcw.org/resp/html/nerve.html Gerhard Schrader, a chemist at IG Farben, was given the task of developing a pesticide. Two years later a phosphorus compound with extremely high toxicity was produced for the first time. IG Farben: “…the board of American IG Farben had three directors from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most influential of the various Federal Reserve Banks. American IG Farben. also had interlocks with Standard Oil of New Jersey, Ford Motor Company, Bank of Manhattan (later to become the Chase Manhattan Bank), and AEG. (German General Electric) Source: Moody’s Manual of Investments; 1930, page 2149.”   http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_02.htm   At a later date, Namaste will be publishing a more in-depth article outlining the devastating affects that fluoride, aspartame and MSG have on the endocrine system. Dr Durrant-Peatfield wiill be answering frequently asked questions on thyroid illness in Namaste’s next issue. Send your questions to us preferably by email to: info@namastepublishing.co.uk

 Thanks to: www.Rense.com

Does Fluoride Really Fight Cavities by ‘the Skin of the Teeth?’

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.

Thanks to Science Daily.

***

Note that Science Daily buys into the theory that fluoride helps teeth but questions how fluoride works.

Speech to Everett City Council 4-11-12.

 

Arsenic in Our Chicken?

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

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?

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 Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Rockville, MD 20857

Dear 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.

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

The Right to Sell Kids Junk

By MARK BITTMAN

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.

Thanks to New York Times.

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 20^th 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 20^th 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

Deconstructing Michael Easley International Fluoride Information Network August 20, 2000 IFIN Bulletin #143: Deconstructing Michael Easley Many communities threatened with a a push for fluoridation are soon confronted with Dr. Michael Easley, either through newspaper articles where he is frequently quoted, or in person. On July 18, 2000 he appeared in a Forum in Wellington, Florida. He gave his prototypical presentation which probably impresses officials and citizens who have not read up on the issue. To prepare citizens for future dealings with Easley, we have transcribed his presentation from a video tape of this meeting and made an attempt to deconstruct his argument point by point. When deconstructed, Easley’s argument can be seen for what it is: a lot of undefendable assertions, exaggerated claims, statements which are blatantly false, a methodology more suitable to a propagandist than a bona fide scientist and an almost childish disrepect for his opponents. We have presented Easley’s presentation in full. Paul and Mike Connett. (For those unfamiliar with Michael Easley, he is the Director of the National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research (http://fluoride.oralhealth.org), an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and one of the most active fluoridation lobbyists in the United States.) DR. MICHAEL EASLEY’S PRESENTATION IN WELLINGTON, FLORIDA, JULY 18, 2000. 1) Easley: Community Water Fluoridation has been practiced in the United States for more than 54 years. Grand Rapids, Michigan, fluoridated its public water supply on January 25, 1945. 1) Our response: Grand Rapids was indeed the first test community fluoridated in the United States. In order to test the efficacy of fluoridation, the government fluoridated Grand Rapids and planned to study cavity levels between it and an unfluoridated city, Muskegon (also in Michigan). However, despite the fact that the study was designed to last for 10 years, the non-fluoridated control city (Muskegon) was dropped after only six and a half years, when its water was fluoridated in July 1951. Dr. Phillip Sutton (1996), Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne, has examined these studies in depth (which few have done) and has criticized it on many grounds: the large differences in sample size; different methods of sampling; changes in examiners; examiner variability not assessed; and the dropping of the control city before the trial was completed. When a firm of professional statisticians, The Standard Audit and Measurement, Inc, was employed to study the data published from the trial, they concluded: “the lack of sophistication shown in selecting the sample leads to complete bewilderment as to the precise effects or the extent of the effect of fluoridation” (De Stefano 1954). At the time of the Grand Rapids and other early fluoridation trials, which included Evanston, Illinois and Newburgh New York, the Director of the New York Water Supply Laboratories, Benjamin C. Nesin, stated: “It must be emphasized that the fluoridation hypothesis in its entirety rests on a very narrow base of selected experimental information. It is this very base which is vulnerable to scientific criticism. And it is upon this very narrow base that the impressive array of endorsement rests like an inverted pyramid” (Nesin 1956). 2) Easley: Community water fluoridation has been described by US Surgeon General Luther Terry as one of the four great advances in public health. You may remember Dr. Terry he was the first surgeon general who came out with a report linking tobacco and lung disease and cancer. Dr. Terry liked to describe the four horseman of public health as chlorination, pasteurization, immunization, & fluoridation. Dr. Terry obviously held great importance for water fluoridation as one of the primary public health programs available. 2) Our Response: We have no reason to doubt that Dr.Terry made this statement, other Surgeon Generals have been equally enthusiastic. But the support of the US Surgeon Generals for fluoridation has been somewhat predictable and unavoidable ever since the US Public Health Service gave its full endorsement of the measure in the early 1950′s. As many observers today now realize, and as many sociologists would understand, there is the issue of too much credibility (and liability) at stake for the Public Health Service to come out today and state that fluoridation is an un-needed health hazard after promoting it for so long. One should further note that if the game in convincing someone that fluoridation is safe, effective and good public policy, is one of deferring to authorities, then that game can be equally played on both sides. For instance, Ralph Nader, one of the most respected consumer advocates in the US, is one of many people who approached the issue of fluoridation with an open mind and ended up rejecting the idea (Nader, 1971). In addition, at least 12 Nobel prize winners in medicine and chemistry have expressed their opposition or reservations about fluoridation. But perhaps most importantly, most Western European countries, as well as Japan, after reviewing the evidence for and against, have discontinued and rejected fluoridation. 3) Easley A more recent Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said that ‘community water fluoridation is the single most important committment a community can make to the oral health of its children and to future generations.’ 3) Our response: (See above) It is interesting to point out here that Dr. Koop has lately come under intense criticism for undeclared conflicts of interest which may have served to compromise his integrity. For example, Dr. Koop gave testimony before the US Congress on an issue which pertained to the product of a company for which he had recieved a huge consultancy fee, without declaring his interest in that company (Chicago Tribune, editorial, Nov. 2, 1999). Dr. Koop also works closely with the American Council on Science and Health (ASCH), a group which is widely regarded as a mouthpiece for the interests of the chemical industry. As well as being a strong promoter of fluoridation this group has attempted to downplay the significance of a number of carcinogens affecting industry including DEHP (an addditive to PVC plastic) and dioxins. (Read more about Dr. Koop at http://www.tompaine.com/features/2000/03/28/index.html). 4) Easley: The current Surgeon General David Satcher has stated: ‘Fluoridation remains an ideal public health measure based on the scientific evidence in preventing dental decay and its impressive cost effectiveness.’ He went on to say ‘One of my highest priorities as surgeon general is reducing disparities in health that persist among our various populations. Fluoridation holds great potential to contribute to the elimination of these disparities.’ 4) Our reponse: While Dr. Satcher’s intentions to eliminate these disparities is highly laudable, he is inadvertently advocating a policy which could further disadvantage the poor. It is well established from animal and human studies done in India by Dr. Chinoy and others that those most vulnerable to the toxic effects of fluoride are those suffering from malnutrition; particularly those who have protein, mineral and vitamin deficient diets. In this country the children most likely to have malnutrition are those who come from low income families. 5) Easley: The definition of community water fluoridation is the precise, and I emphasize the word precise, adjustment of the amount of the essential trace element fluoride in drinking water in order to provide for the proper development of teeth and bones and to insure protection of teeth in children and adults regularly consuming it. Community water fluoridation is a 20th century adaptation to a naturally occuring process. Literally all sources of drinking water in the United States contain some fluoride. Fluoridation is merely an upwards adjustment of drinking water fluoride levels to that which is optimum for health. 5) Our response: a) PRECISION. First of all, if fluoridation was as precise as Easley claims, than the citizens of Wakefield and Norfolk Massachusetts wouldn’t have awoken recently to learn that the fluoride levels in their water had jumped from 1 ppm to 23 ppm due to a malfunction in the water plant’s fluoride pump (Boston Herald, August 9, 2000). Such malfunctions with fluoride pumps have been numerous in the past, resulting several times in citizen casualties. For example, in Kodiak, Alaska (May 1992), after fluoride levels accidentally rose to 150 ppm, one person died, one was airlifted to the hospital in critical condition, and 260 suffered symptoms of fluoride poisoning (Townsend Letter for Doctors, Oct 1994). Secondly, there is the larger issue of controlling the DOSE of fluoride each person receives. This dose is highly imprecise because i) people’s consumption of water can vary by wide margins with age, activity, and health status (e.g. diabetics can consume much more water than others) and because ii) there are many other sources of fluoride that we are exposed to daily, such as food and beverages prepared in fluoridated areas, fluoridated toothpastes and mouthwash, pesticide residues in food, and pharmaceuticals. Controlling the level of fluoride intake is not precise:it is a crap shoot. b) Lack of precision when it comes to dose is dangerous. This lack of precision in the delivery of a therapeutic agent is very serious, especially in the case of fluoride, because the margin of safety for long term health effects (e.g. brittle bones) is very low to non-existent. Normally, pharmacologists like to have a margin of safety of 100, and sometimes a 1000, for a therapeutic agent. This means that they like to have a therapeutic dose which is 100 or 1000 times less than the toxic dose. In the case of fluoride the safety margin, extrapolating from the Upper Intake (UI) figures presented by the Institute of Medicine (1997), is less than 10, and from the US EPA’s maximum contaminant level in water (4 ppm), is less than 4. Gordon and Corbin (1992) indicate that a daily consumption of water containing 4 ppm fluoride would yield bone levels of approximately 6000 ppm (as measured in bone ash), which is the level at which the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS, 1991) indicates the first phase of skeletal fluorosis will occur. c) PROPER DEVLOPMENT. Easley’s notion of the ‘proper development of teeth and bones’ is misleading in that ‘proper’ implies fluoride is necessary and essential for both healthy teeth and healthy bones. This is not true. Human beings do not need fluoride to have healthy teeth nor to have healthy bones, and there is not one one study Easley could cite to the contrary. The best that a proponent could argue is that fluoride is beneficial to teeth and bones (it may help but it is not necessary). While this is debateable, it as at least that, debateable. But calling fluoride esential is not a debateable point, it is simply not true. d) ESSENTIAL ELEMENT. Fluoride is not an essential trace element. Teeth and bones can develop to their fullest and healthiest without ever having any fluoride treatment. No disease is likewise caused by a “fluoride deficiency”, which is the normal indicator of whether an element is essential, or not. e) 20TH CENTURY ADAPTATION TO A NATURALLY OCCURING PROCESS. The fact that an element occurs naturally is no protection against it being toxic. By definition all elements occur naturally and many elements are toxic e.g. lead, cadmium and mercury, to name just three. In the case of the natural occurence of fluoride in water, it is usually accompanied by considerable quantities of calcium, which is protective to a certain extent of fluoride’s toxicity. However, artifical fluoridation of 90% of US waters is done using hexafluorosiliciic acid or its sodium salt, which are taken from the scrubbing liquids of the air pollution control devices of the superphosphate fertilizer industry. The fluoride we get from these pollution scrubbing devices does not have calcium present. What it does have however, are trace amounts of arsenic, lead and radioactive isotopes. As Tom Reeves, National Fluoridation Engineer for the CDC, recently stated, “Chuck Krepshaw of Cargill Fertilizer Inc, the producer of about 70-75% of the F chemicals used in the U.S., tells me now that in the newer vein of apatite rock (from which we get the fluosilicic acid) the impurities are very small amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury and barium.” In short, there is a world of difference between fluoride in the presence of a large excess of calcium and these silicofluorides in the presence of trace quantities of toxic metals and radioactive isotopes. A better indication of what is natural comes from the levels of fluoride naturally present in mothers milk. These levels are 100 times less than the level added to the drinking water (0.01 ppm versus 1.0 ppm). If nature thought of fluoridation first, as Easley likes to say, than it sure had a different notion of what levels an infant should receive! 6) Easley: Fluoridation is really a form of nutritional supplementation. Adding fluoride to the drinking water is no different from adding vitamin c to fruit drinks to prevent scurvy, vitamin d to milk and breads to prevent rickets, iodine to table salt to prevent goiter, folic acid to grains, cererals, and pastas to prevent birth defects, and adding vitamins and minerals to breakfast cereals to promote normal growth and development. 6) Our Response: These are outrageous comparisons. All these additives are either vitamins or minerals for which there are known deficiency diseases. There is no known disease associated with fluoride deficiency. Dental decay is due to a combination of poor diet (too much sugar, not enough minerals) and too little brushing. Also, all the substances listed by Easley have to be swallowed to obtain their benefit, because they all aid various vital enzymatic processes inside the body. Fluoride, on the other hand, provides no beneficial effect once swallowed. It works topically and it works not by aiding enzymes but by poisoning them (i.e it inhibits the enzymes in the bacteria which convert sugar to acids which dissolve the tooth enamel). A more adequate description of fluoride is that it is a therapeutic agent. As stated above, it acts topically on the surface of the tooth, not via ingestion. This position is supported by a growing list of dental researchers: Levine (1976), Fejerskov, Thylstrup and Joost (1981), Carlos (1983), Featherstone(1987, 2000), Margolis and Moreno (1990), Burt (1994), Shellis and Duckworth (1994) and Limeback (1998). The latest paper supporting and explaining this position was published in July, 2000 in the Journal of the American Dental Association by researcher John Featherstone. In his paper Featherstone states that fluoride “works primarily via topical mechanisms,” adding, “the fluoride incorporated developmentally – that is, systemically into the normal tooth mineral- is insufficient to have a measurable efect on acid solubility”. As Featherstone explains, fluoride acts (like a pesticide) by killing the bacteria on the enamel which produce the enamel dissolving acids. A vital question concerning fluoride, therefore, is can you kill the bacteria in the mouth without poisoning other enzymes in the body, once it is swallowed? Based upon the increasing percentage of children impacted by dental fluorosis the answer appears to be no. However, the key point is that once the benefits of fluoride are recognized as being topical and the health risks recognized as being systemic, it simply does not make sense to swallow fluoride. If you think it is going to do some good to children’s teeth, TOPICALLY, then the sensible thing to do is to wait for your baby’s teeth to erupt and then very carefully apply the fluoride to the teeth in the form of toothpaste. The key thing is NOT TO SWALLOW IT, which is precisely what can’t be avoided once the fluoride is in the water! Adding fluoride to your drinking water makes as much sense as adding nail varnish or skin ointment to your bread. 7) Easley: Fluoridation is Safe, it’s effective, it’s efficient, it’s economical,it’s socially equitable, it’s environmentally sound, and its good public policy. 7) Our response: Easley loves this soundbite (7 arguments in one sentence!), he uses it again and again. However, saying something over and over doesn’t make it true. Each argument has to be defended separately with good research and good data. Easley is sadly lacking on the research and data to support each of these seven claims, as is indicated by the fact that at this point in his presentation he has yet to offer any documentation to support any one of these 7 positions. Easley: The National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, has established a minimal adequate intake level for fluoride: ‘this is a daily intake level that people need to properly develop and to properly prevent dental decay.’ Our response: The notion that people need fluoride to “properly develop” teeth was addressed in a previous response. Fluoride does not help to develop teeth, it may only help to protect them topically once they have erupted. 9) Easley: People in fluoridated communities get about half their adequate intake from drinking water so its calculated to figure in fluoride that we get from other sources. 9) Our response: The level of fluoride added to drinking water and advocated as the adequate “optimal” level since 1945 in the US is 1 ppm (0.7 – 1.2 ppm depending upon climate). 1 ppm is equivalent to 1 milligram of fluoride per liter of water, and 1 liter of water is considered to be the average daily consumption. So assuming that the average child consumes one liter of water they would get 1 mg of fluoride per day. 1 mg a day was believed to be the ‘optimal level’ i.e. the fine balancing point for fluoride exposure, where fluorosis was minimized and cavity prevention maximized. Interestingly enough, as the CDC (1999) explains, above 1 mg a day there is a decreased relationship between fluoride exposure and cavity reduction. According to the CDC, “Caries among children was lower in cities with more fluoride in their community water supplies; at concentrations greater than 1.0 ppm, this association began to level off.” Since 1945, however, we are getting fluoride from many other sources. From the combined use and consumption of fluoridated toothpastes and dental products, food and beverages processed with fluoridated water, and food with fluoride containing pesticide residues, most children and adults are already exceeding the so-called ‘optimal level’ of 1 mg per day. This being the case, Easley should state here why we still need to give people an additional 1 milligram of fluoride a day via drinking water when we are getting 1 mg a day from these other sources. If institutions like the Public Health Service, ADA, and the CDC, had been more receptive and accomodating to such changing fluoride exposure trends, they would have lowered by now the “optimal” level needed in water to account for the significantly increasing levels of fluoride we are getting from these other sources. 10) Easley: Adequate intake (AI) is defined as the daily ‘intakes that have been shown to reduce the occurence of dental caries maximally in a population without causing unwanted side effects including moderate dental fluorosis’ (source: Dietary reference intake for calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, vitamin d, and fluoride, Institute of Medicine august 1997). Community water fluoridation does not cause moderate dental fluorosis. 10) Our Response: When Easley says that “water fluoridation does not cause moderate dental fluorosis” he is doing two things: a) he is ignoring the “mild” and “very mild” forms of dental fluorosis and b) he is attempting to exploit the fact that it is a combination of fluoride exposure from all sources that is causing dental fluorosis, i.e. from fluoridated water, food and beverages processed with fluoridated water and dental products etc. Fluoride is the only known cause of dental fluorosis and the fluoride used in fluoridation programs cannot be conveniently excluded from being a key contributing factor in fluorosis, both directly in the water and indirectly via food contaminated with it. Swallowing toothpaste by young children also contributes to dental fluorosis, hence the increase in dental fluorosis in non-fluoridated communities. Recent large studies in the U.S. confirm the fact that fluorosis is increasing in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, but more so amongst the fluoridated. Heller et. al, for instance, when looking at 15,532 U.S. schoolchildren aged 7-17 years who had a history of a single residence in a fluoridated community, found that 29.9% of the children had dental fluorosis i.e.approximately 1 in 3. However this figure reflects those children with at least TWO teeth impacted by dental fluorosis. If we include the children which may have had signs of dental fluorosis on one tooth, the percentage of children jumps to 66.4%. This figure is certainly in line with other studies in the US. For example: a) Williams (1990) found that 81% of a sample (n = 374) of 12-14 year olds in Augusta, Georgia (a fluoridated community) had dental fluorosis. b) Lalumandier (1995) found that 75% of a sample (n = 233) of 5 to 19 year olds had fluorosis in Asheville, North Carolina (fluoridated). and c) Morgan (1998) found that 69% of a sample (n =197) of 7 to 11 year olds in surburban Boston (fluoridated) had fluorosis. Also on page 108 of Dental Fluorosis – A Handbook for Health Workers by Ferjerskov, Baelum, Manji and Moller, Munksgaard, 1988, it states: “…we have shown that a daily intake of fluoride as low as 0.04 mg/kg body weight can result in dental fluorosis of the permanent dentition. This amount is considerably below that which is usually referred to in the literature (0.1 mg/kg body weight). This is hardly surprising since a ‘magic borderline’ below which the signs of dental fluorosis are totally absent from all people does not in reality exist.” While Easley, and other proponents of fluoridation, like to dismiss dental fluorosis as merely a “cosmetic effect”, it is far more serious than that. It is a clear indication that fluoride has been ingested and got inside the growing tooth cells. Pam DenBesten (1999) has showed that fluoride causes dental fluorosis by poisoning enzymes which lay down the tooth enamel. To be precise fluoride inhibits enzymes called proteases which normally digest the little amount of protein left between the mineral prisms immediately before they fuse to form the smooth enamel surface. The little pieces of protein left cause the fluorotic white patches on the tooth. What this means is that dental fluorosis, when it occurs, is signalling to us that fluoride has entered the body and poisoned an enzyme. Those concerned about human health, should now ask, what other enzymes is fluoride likely to poison in the body, for which there is no visible telltale sign such as our teeth? This issue of fluoride poisoning enzymes was the reason why Nobel Laureate, Dr. James Sumner, the key biochemist of his day, was concerned about fluoridation’s safety. Sumner expressed caution, stating that “We need to go slowly. Everybody knows fluorine and fluorides are very poisonous substances…We use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body. That is the reason things are poisoned; because the enzymes are poisoned and that is why animals and plants die” (see Connett 2000). 11) Easley: Well, why use public water supplies as the vehicle for providing this public health activity? * Treatment of water for public consumption is a tool used by public health agencies to prevent disease as far back as the 1840′s. * Water treatment for disease prevention is a primary public health activity. * Water treatment prevents diseases such as: *amoebic dysentery *cholera *enteropathogenic diarrhea (e coli) *giardiasis *hepatitis A *leptospirosis *paratyphoid fever *schistosomiasis *typhoid fever & many other diseases, including dental caries. 11) Our response: Once again Easley is mixing up apples and oranges here. It has been pointed out many times that there is a huge difference between treating water to kill pathogens and using the water as a vehicle to deliver medication. The diseases being combatted at the water treatment facility are those that might be carried by the water and poison the consumer. On the other hand dental decay is not a disease which originates at the water treatment facility, it begins in the mouth. It is best treated there, or prevented there, by the consumer, not by any engineers –acting as dentists–at a water plant. 12) Easley: The American Water Works Association and the National Sanitation Foundation have established standards for chemicals that are added to public water supplies. The various fluoride chemicals used by water treatment plants are approved by these organizations and are safe for all. Water treatment chemicals are used for a number of things *disinfection *absorption *dechlorination *algae control *oxidation *metal coagulation *water softening *filtration *ph control *iron control *coagulation *corrosion control *decolorization *fluoridation 12) Our response: Beyond the fact that all these chemical treatment processes (except fluoridation) are treating the water and not the human, all the chemicals used (except fluoride), are accomplishing goals which would not be practical or feasibly accomplished by the individual, i.e. an individual can brush their teeth to prevent cavities. That is feasible. An individual can not pour a host of chemicals into their cup or kettle to perform the various other functions Easley describes. That is not feasible. Also, citing a lengthy list of chemical uses in the water, says nothing of the safety or effectiveness of fluoride. We could use the same list and end with mercury, and say well we already use a bunch of other chemicals so what’s the big deal about using one more? 13) Easley: Community water fluoridation is the cornerstone of dental caries prevention for over 54 years because fluoridation is: *safe *effective *efficient *economical *socially equitable *environmentally sound & *good public policy 13) Our reponse: Instead of citing a study here which demonstrates that fluoridation is the “cornerstone of dental caries prevention” over the last 54 years, Easley attempts to support this assertion by referring back to his unsupported refrain. In continually repeating this packaged refrain, Easley is following Goebbels’ key recommendation for propagandists: repeat the lie enough times and people will eventually believe it. 14) Easley: Community water fluoridation is an example of a perfect public health intervention, because *it does not discriminate against any group *large groups are protected continuously with no conscious effort on their part to participate *it works without requiring individuals to gather in a central location *it does not require costly services of health professionals to deliver *there’s no daily dosage schedules to remember *there’s no foul-tasting oral medications to endure *there’s no painful inoculations to experience *and all the public has to do is go about their normal daily routine to be protected. 14) Our response: Fluoridation does discriminate. *It discriminates against people who do not want to be forced to ingest fluoride, and the other waste products from the superphosphate fertilizer industry’s scrubbing water (even if it has been diluted). * It discriminates against those who are particularly sensitive and vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects. As described earlier, those sensitive to fluoride’s toxic effects include those who have deficinencies in either vitamin C or calcium, or protein. In its toxicological profile on fluoride, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 1993), stated that there are particular subsets of the population which are “unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds”, these populations include: “the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems…Impaired renal clearance of fluoride has also been found in people with diabetes mellitus and cardiac insufficiency. People over the age of 50 often have decreased renal fluoride clearance…Poor nutrition increases the incidence of dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis..” (page 113). * It descriminates against mothers’ who bottle feed their babies. According to the Institute of Medicine, based upon the natural levels of fluoride found in breast milk, the appropriate level of fluoride for infants under 6 months of age is 0.01 mg per day, which is 100 times less than the so called optimal level of 1 mg per day, which would be obtained from one liter of fluoridated water (Alberts & Shine, 1998). Even the American Dental Association (Pendrys, 1995) recommends that infants under six months not receive any fluoride supplementation to their diet. Therefore, any mother bottle feeding a child living in a fluoridated area is faced with a dilemma of not being able to safely use fluoridated tap water to make up her baby formula. Moreover, people can’t really expect to just “go about their normal daily routine (and) be protected” from dental decay. Even applied topically, fluoride is not a magic bullet. Parents in fluoridated communities, just as parents in non-fluoridated communities, still need to make sure that their kids don’t overdose on sugar, aren’t exposed to lead, get a good diet, brush their teeth regularly and don’t swallow their toothpaste. 15) Easley: Fluoridation is extremely cost effective. The average US average cost for fluoridation equals fifty cents per person per year. So if you assume a 75 year life span, that’s $37.50 for a lifetime of protection for one person. According to a 1998 national dental cost survey it costs $62.00 for one small filling on one tooth. Thus, it costs less for a lifetime of protection from fluoridation for one individual than it costs for one small dental filling for that same individual — $37.50 vs. $62.00. Fluoridation has an 80:1 benefit-to-cost ratio. On average, for every $1 spent on fluoridation, $80 in dental treatment costs are saved (source: CDC). 15) Our response: When one hears these statistics, they sound impressive. However, it bears considering that when the CDC first published this 80 to 1 estimate (1992 – see http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/00016840.htm ), they had available to them the results of the largest survey on dental health ever conducted in the United States. In 1986-87, the National Institute for Dental Research, at a taxpayers’ expense of $3.6 million, examined the teeth of over 39,000 children in 84 different communities. In the study, the NIDR’s own statisticians determined that the average difference in DMFS (Decayed, Missing & Filled Surfaces) for children aged 5-17 living in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas, was only 0.6 (2.79 DMFS vs. 3.39 DMFS). This is a difference of approximately a half of one tooth surface, of which there are 128 in a child’s mouth! (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990). How the CDC could calculate their 80 to 1 ratio, in light of this study, is difficult to understand. For if the CDC’s estimate is right, than a restoration of a half tooth surface costs $680.00, which is obviously not the case. The math for this $680 figure is as follows: 1) $0.50 a year for fluoridation. 2) 17 years multiplied by $0.50 equals $8.50. 3) $8.50 multiplied by 80 (every dollar spent saves 80) equals $680.00 4) restoration of 0.6 tooth surface equals $680.00 It’s indeed difficult to understand how fluoridation is providing an 80 to 1 cost benefit, when it is now known that decay rates are declining at similar rates in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Diesendorf, 1986, WHO online – see http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html). According to Hardy Limeback, Past-President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research, and Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, “Even when very large sample sizes are used to obtain statistically significant results, the benefit of water fluoridation is not a clinically relevant one (the number of tooth surfaces saved from dental decay per person is less than one half). Recent studies show that halting fluoridation will either result in only a marginal increase in dental decay which cannot be detected or no increase in dental decay at all” (Limeback, 2000). Likewise, Kunzel (1997), who performed a study in former Eastern Germany after fluoridation had ceased (when the two Germanies united), found, to his surprise, that dental decay continued to decrease after fluoridation was stopped. In his paper he states “…it is obvious that the relation between varying F concentrations of the drinking water and the caries level, being valid between 1959 and the mid-eighties, is no longer true”. A particularly interesting study confirming this fact in the US is the recently published paper by Kumar and Green (1998). Their paper deals with the state of children’s teeth in Newburgh and Kingston, NY. These cities are very significant from the historical perspective of the fluoridation issue because the earlier 1945-55 study of Newburgh-Kingston is still cited today as evidence for the efficacy of fluoridation. Newburgh was the second city that was fluoridated in the US (in 1945) and Kingston was the control city. To this day Newburgh has remained fluoridated, and Kingston has remained unfluoridated. The children’s teeth were examined in 1945, before fluoridation, 1955 (10 years after fluoridation), 1986 and 1995. Kumar and Green summarize the data for ’45, ’55, ’86 and ’95 in graphical form. In 1955, the teeth of the Newburgh children showed a dramatic decline in DMFTs compared with those of Kingston. However, when the teeth were re-examined in 1986, there was little difference between the two communities. By 1995, the teeth of the children of unfluoridated Kingston had slightly better average DMFTs! Dental fluorosis, meanwhile, was about twice as high in Newburgh as it was in Kingston. In sum, based upon this 50 year experiment, we can now say, that the children of unfluoridated Kingston have got better teeth on two counts: a) they have slightly better DMFTs and b) they have about half the dental fluorosis of fluoridated Newburgh. Another problem with the 80 to 1 cost-benefit ratio is that it doesn’t take into account the increased costs of treating fluorosis, incidences of which are increased by fluoridating the water. This is a particularly significant omission considering that Dr. Limeback has stated that we are spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we would be spending treating the “clinically irrelevant” increase in dental decay that would result if fluoridation were halted. According to Limeback, treating dental fluorosis has now become a multi-billion dollar industry. Nor has Easley taken into account the huge potential costs of increased hip fractures in the elderly which are possibly associated with fluoride exposure. There have been 18 studies (4 unpublished, see references below) in the last decade examining the issue of whether fluoridation contributes to hip fracture. While the results are mixed (not at all unusual in human epidemiological studies), 10 of the studies show an association, and 8 do not, the issue is of one of grave concern. The US spends up to $10 billion a year treating hip fractures, and one in four of elderly patients suffering from hip fracture are dead within a year of their operation. If it is confirmed that fluoridation does contribute towards an increase in hip fracture, the costs could dwarf the suggested savings from fluoridation. 16) Easley: Those fortunate enough to have had access to community water fluoridation experience 40-60% percent fewer dental cavities. 16). Our response: Note that no source is given for this 40-60% reduction claim. Being that this is perhaps the most fundamental assertion made by Easley in his presentation (upon which he will extrapolate many other claims of cost-saving benefit) this is a glaring omission. It is also a technical inconsistency, as Easley throughout the presentation cites sources for other less significant data such as population sizes and dental school enrollment. We suspect Dr. Easley doesn’t cite a source for this 40 to 60% reduction claim, because there are no modern studies which support these figures. For instance, in the NIDR’s 1986-87 study (the largest ever done in the US) the differences in DMFTs (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth) between children living in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities was 1.97 and 2.05 respectively, which represents a difference of just 0.39% (Yiamouyiannis, 1990 – see http://www.fluoridealert.org/DMFTs.htm). In terms of the difference in DMFS, Brunelle and Carlos (1990) found an 18% difference (2.79 DMFS vs. 3.39 DMFS) which as mentioned above amounts to an approximate average of one half of a tooth surface. This is what the Department of Health and Human Services said about the NIDR study in a press release dated May 1, 1989, “Children who had always lived in fluoridated areas had about 18% less tooth decay than children who have never lived in a fluoridated community…when some of the effects of topical fluorides were taken into account, the difference rose to 25 percent”. The 40-60% reduction claim, along with being contradicted by the NIDR’s data, is not supported by the findings of Mark Diesendorf published in Nature (1986). Diesendorf, and likewise Colquhoun (1987, 1994) found that levels of dental decay were falling in many communties before fluoridation was introduced, has continued to fall in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities and further continued to fall in fluoridated communities even after both the benefits of fluoriation and the use of fluoridated toothpaste would have had been maximized. Bette De Liefde (1998) has also found a convergence between the quality of children’s teeth in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in New Zealand, and that improvements have continued there even after the assumed benefits of fluoridation and fluoridated toothpaste had been maximized. She hypothesizes that it may be the preservatives (antibiotics) in processed food which also serve the purpose of killing the decay-causing bacteria in our mouths. A good question, therefore, to ask when Dr. Easley claims fluoridation reduces cavities by 40 to 60% is on what study does he base this claim, how large was the study, and when was it done? Also, it would be instructive to ask Easley how he claims fluoridation reduces decay by 40 to 60% when the Department of Health and Human Services, based on data from the largest modern U.S. study on teeth, claimed that there was only an 18% reduction. 17) Easley: Fluoridation benefits: *infants *children *adolescents *adults *senior citizens. 17) Our response: Again, Easley makes a blanket statement which he does not support with accompanying research data. But here we will focus on why fluoridation does not benefit infants, and why it very much stands to harm senior citizens, particularly those having lived in fluoridated communities for many years. PRE-ERUPTION INFANTS. As mentioned earlier, leading dental researchers like Featherstone (2000) are now realizing that fluoride does not work systemically. It was their belief in systemic benefit, however, which has led dentists and doctors, for the last 55 years, to prescribe fluoride tablets for pregnant mothers and new born infants. It was their belief that fluoride would make its way through the body into the developing teeth, get incorporated there and then provide greater protection for the teeth against acid attack. However, as Featerstone states today, “The fluoride incorporated developmentally – that is, systemically into the normal tooth mineral- is insufficient to have a measurable effect.” Any city council member considering fluoridation as a result of Easley’s testimony, should ask him therefore, if systemic exposure to fluoride has insufficient effect on the pre-erupted tooth, why is fluoridated water a good idea for an infant before their teeth have erupted? And if it isn’t a benefit, but instead, increases their risk of dental fluorosis and possibly other health problems, how will councils which fluoridate the public water supplies, ensure that mothers who bottle feed their babies do not use fluoridated water to make up their formula. What are the legal liabilities here? SENIOR CITIZENS. As far as senior citizens are concerned, any benefits which may or may not have accrued to their teeth over and above what can be obtained from fluridated toothpaste, has to be balanced with the daily accumulation of fluoride in their bones. How brittle will those bones be after 50, 60, 70 or even 80 years of accumulation? The US government is not tracking the level of fluoride in our bones, but, as noted above, there have been 18 studies conducted since 1990, from the US, France, Finland, Canada and China, probing the possible relationship between exposure to fluoride via water and increased hip fracture. 10 of the them show an association. The study from China (Li, 1999, unpublished) shows an almost linear increase with fluoride levels in the water (1 ppm to 7 ppm) on hip fracture. 18) Easley: Fluoridation Reduces the Number of Missed Work Days, Saves Employers Money, Lowers the Cost of Medical Insurance, and Lowers the Cost of Consumer Goods & Services. 18) Our reponse: Again this argument hinges on the proof that the reduction in tooth decay is as substantial as Easley is claiming and that the reductions that have taken place are not due to other causes as discussed above. 19) Easley: Who benefits from dental treatment cost savings? *taxpayers who support public programs *employers who pay prepaid dental care fringe benefits for their employees *employers who normally absorb costs for employees missed days from work *consumers who will pay lower prices for consumer goods because of lower employer costs for insurance and employee absences *Patients who will pay lower health care bills & lower insurance premiums because of fewer numbers of hospital emergency room visists for dental emergencies *patients who will pay lower health care bills, lower dental care costs, & lower insurance premiums because of lower costs incurred by providers for uncompensated care, costs which are often passed on to those who can pay. Therefore, Fluoridation promotes: *lower health care costs *lower insurance costs *lower tax-supported costs for public programs *lower business costs for employers *lower costs for consumer goods and services. 19) Our response: Note again, that Easley doesn’t provide one study to support these assertions. For these claims to have merit, he would need to show studies which have compared: *Insurance rates in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas *Tax rates for fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas *Business costs for fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas *Inflation rates for fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas. 20) Easley: Just to give you an example of the impact that community water fluoridation has had on the dental education system and the practice of dentistry in the United States: *7 Dental Schools have closed since 1985 *Enrollment reductions in the remaining dental schools since 1980 are equivalent to the closure of another 20 average size dental schools (source: Institute of Medicine 1995). We’re graduating about half the number of dentists today each year than we graduated back in 1980. 20) Our response: This is an interesting fact, but more revealing would be a study comparing the number of dentists in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. With cavities declining in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, it does not follow that fluoridation is the reason why dental school enrollment is down. 21) Easley: Currently in the United States 145 million Americans drinking water from community water systems with optimal fluoride levels. This represents 62.2% of the population having access to a community water supply. Now this is really a little bit misleading because this is based on a 1992 national fluoridation census which was the last one that was conducted. We know that we’ve added so many more communities. That many, many more americans, many millions of more americans, are having access to optimally fluoridated water now. Currently in the United States: * 14,300 community water systems fluoridate * these systems serve 10,500 American communities * 45 of the 50 largest U.S. cities fluoridate their water system 10 states, Puerto Rico, & the District of Columbia mandate statewide fluoridation through legislation — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota 4 states have 100% of the population served by community water systems benefiting from fluoridation: *South Dakota *Rhode Island *Kentucky *District of Columbia 13 states have greater than 85% of that population served by community water systems benefiting from fluoridation: Connecticut Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Maryland Michigan Minnesota North Dakota South Carolina Ohio Tennessee Wisconsin” List of Communities Recently approving fluoridation [U.S. Bureau of Census 7/1/98 Population estimates]: Los Angeles, CA pop. 3,597,556 Las Vegas, NV pop. 1,162,129 San Diego, CA pop. 1,220,666 Sacramento, CA pop. 404,168 Mesa, AZ pop. 360,176 Escambia County, FL pop. 282,303 Modesto, CA pop. 200,000 Manchester, NH pop. 102,524 Allentown, PA pop. 100,757 Gilbert, AZ pop. 88,640 Pompano Beach, FL pop. 75,982 Yakima, WA pop. 64,967 Boynton Beach, FL pop. 53,607 Bradenton, FL pop. 47,049 Sacremento Co, PA pop. 24,000 Cumberland, MA pop. 21,521 Connersville, IN pop. 15,550 Canon City, CO pop. 15,239 Frostburg, MD pop. 7,632 Freeport, ME pop. 7,541 Dover-Foxcroft, ME pop. 2,400       Just in the last year and a half we have added 7.9 million people (7,926,690) to the rolls of people recieving optimally fluoridated water. So many of your counterpart cities around the country are choosing to fluoridate their water systems. 21) Our reponse: While many of these states do fluoridate much or most of their water, and while other cities have indeed begun fluoridating recently, it is important to note the following countries which over the past two to three decades have reviewed and rejected water fluoridation and which have not, somehow, suffered the consequences of high cavity levels. Austria pop. 8,139,299 Belgium pop. 10,182,034 Denmark pop. 5,356,845 Finland pop. 5,158,372 France pop. 58,978,172 Germany pop. 82,087,361 Greece pop. 10,707,135 Italy pop. 56,735,130 Japan pop. 126,182,077 Luxemburg pop. 429,080 Netherlands pop. 15,807,641 Norway pop. 4,438,547 Spain (3%) pop. 39,167,744 Sweden pop. 8,911,296 Switzerland pop. 7,275,467       The following statements are from some of these governments concerning fluoridation: Japan: “Japanese government and local water suppliers have considered there is no need to supply fluoridated water to ALL users because 1) impacts of fluoridated water on human health depends on each human being so that inappropriate application may cause health problems of vulnerable people, and 2) there is other ways for the purpose of dental health care, such as direct F-coating on teeth and using fluoridated dental paste and these ways should be applied at one’s free will” (Toru Nagayama, Environment Agency, Government of Japan, Tokyo, March 8, 2000). (You can read full letter at: www.fluoridation.com/c-japan.htm). Belgium: “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000 — www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm). Denmark: “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies.” (Klaus Werner Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999 – www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm). Norway: “In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated” (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000 – www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm). Sweden: “Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden…New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.” (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000 – www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm). Germany: “In the Federal Republic of Germany there was in about 1952 a drinking water fluoridation experiment. But it was stopped after one or two years” (Geschaftszeichen (Bei allen Antworten bitte angeben), Bonn, Germany, February 11, 2000 – www.fluoridation.com/c-germany.htm). Finland: “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000 – www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm). Austria: “Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000 – www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm). 22) Easley: The U.S. Surgeon General’s year 2010 Health Objectives for the Nation include a fluoridation objective to get 75% of the population fluoridated by the year 2010. The U.S. is currently at 62.2% but as I said that’s a bit misleading…we think that we’re somewhere around 70% right now and we’re going to more than achieve the 75% objective by the year 2010. 22) Our response: Again, it is interesting to note here how specific Easley gets with population data, in light of how general, to its detriment, the rest of his presentation has been. To his critics, this may be because Easley is more preoccupied with ardently promoting fluoridation than he is with dealing with the evolving science on the matter. 23) Easley: Who supports water fluoridation? The public does, the American public. 1998 National Gallup Poll of Consumers’ Opinions on Whether Community Should be Fluoridated Yes 70% No 18% Don’t Know 12% 1991 National Gallup Survey of Parents:Gallup, Dec 1991 Question asked: Whether or not you presently have fluoridated water, do you approve or disapprove of fluoridated drinking water? Yes: 78% No: 10% Don;t Know: 12% So an overwhelming majority of American citizens when surveyed, year in and year out, agree that community water fluoridation is what they want and approve of it. 23) Our response: As with all polls, one needs to keep in mind that the results of a poll depend upon the way a question is asked. The above question, considering that most Americans are not very knowledgable about the fluoridation issue (for example how many Americans know that 90% of the water which is fluoridated, is fluoridated using a hazardous waste product of the superphosphate fertilizer industry?) does not say that much. Contrast this American poll with one carried out in Britain in 1993 (O’brien, OPCS, 1993), where people were asked how one attains good dental hygiene. In the poll the majority of people mentioned common sense things like, brushing teeth, visiting the dentist, and limiting sugar in the diet. Only 3 to 5% metnioned either fluoride or fluoridation as a key factor. Moreover, if the question was asked in a way which gave the respondent a better sense of the controversy concerning dental benefits vs health risks, the poll would undoubtedly have much different results. Such a question might have been, “Some claim adding fluoride to the public water supply benefits people’s teeth, while others claim it can cause adverse health effects. Do you believe a community’s water should be fluoridated?” Secondly, if there really is “an overwhelming majority of Americans” who want fluoridation, why do so many communities when given a chance to vote on the issue, vote against it? Take for instance, the recent referendum (August 9, 2000) in Ste. Genevieve Missouri where residents voted no to fluoridation 54 to 46 percent. Such a vote is not uncommon. For instance, according to a 1990 letter from the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, “the statistics are that 3 out of 4 fluoridation referenda fail.” It’s interesting to note here, that in this letter they prefaced this point by suggesting that communities should “avoid a referendum” if they wish to fluoridate (Acess letter at: www.fluoridealert.org/low-profile.htm). One explanation for the discrepancies between the national polls Easley cites versus the results of community referenda is that people generally become more ambivalent about fluoride once they learn about possible health effects and that they and their children will have to ingest the substance every day for the rest of their lives. But, in sum, it is clearly inaccurate to say that the “overwhelming majority” of Americans support fluoridation. If anything, the overwhelming majority of Americans neither approve nor disapprove, but are instead inadequately informed about either side of the issue. In our view, opinion polls would only tell us something meaningful if they were preceded with a thorough discussion of both sides of the issue. 24)Easley: Who supports fluoridation? Newspaper editorials strongly supporting fluoridation since 7/1/99: Abilene (TX) Reporter-News Arizona Republic Colorado Springs Gazette Cumberland (MD) Times-News Honolulu Advertiser Honolulu Star-Bulletin Las Vegas Sun Olympia (WA) Olympian Sacremento Bee Salt Lake City Deseret News Salt Lake City Tribune San Diego Union-Tribune St. Louis Post-Dispatch, among many, many many other newspapers. 24) Our response: We agree that many newspapers do. This is both true and problematic. Because all too often we have found that editors are excessively polemical on the issue, often clumping all citizens concerned about fluoridation’s safety into some 1950′s John Birch Society camp of paranoid right wing conspiracy theorists. Not only does this approach to the issue fail to properly educate people about both sides of the issue, it does a real disservice to efforts made by concerned citizens and independent scientists to raise reasonable concerns based on peer reviewed literature. There are few groups of citizens in this country, we believe, who are treated as disrespectfully and unfairly as those groups concerned about fluoridation. Take for instance, the following examples from recent editorials: * From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 10, 2000:”IN the 1950s, opponents of fluoridation of public water supplies saw good dental health as part of a communist plot to eliminate cavities and capitalism in one fell swoop.Half a century later, the world has changed. Communism has all but disappeared, but ignorance and fear persist among the anti-fluoridation crowd. They still see bogeymen where others see benefits. Now that the once-mighty Soviet Union has crumbled — and with it, presumably, its plans for world domination through America’s teeth — they have seized upon the supposed adverse health effects of fluoride as their latest weapon.”       * From the San Diego Tribune April 4, 2000, in a presumed attempt to show off the editor’s assumed intellectual savvy and wit:”You insist that fluoridated water wasn’t a Commie plot? OK, pinko, explain this:Since 1954, no fluoride has been added to San Diego County’s water supply. Not one drop.Throughout these additive-free years, guess how much territory we surrendered to the Red Army? Not one inch.”       Those who have actually been with, and listened to what people opposed to fluoridation are talking about, will know that communist plots are as irrelevant to them as the Monica Lewinsky scandal is. But somehow or another, it is almost formulaic, that editors begin their piece by making some self deemed witty statement about how wrong those 1950′s John Bircher’s were. But what makes it all worse, is that these same editors, who make sweeping and blanket statements (sound familiar?) about the lack of scientific credibility behind fluoridation concerns, turn around and make ridiculously flawed statements themselves about the science. Take for instance, the following two editorials from the Honolulu Advertiser, which claim that fluoridation is essential because fluoride’s primary benefits come from systemic exposure, which is exactly the opposite of what, as discussed above, is now understood by the dental community itself. According to the editors, “Community water fluoridation has been shown to safely prevent up to 70 percent of dental cavities. It does this by hardening teeth from the inside, preventing cavities and tooth decay that topical applications cannot prevent. There are other ways to take fluoride, in pills, for example, but none are as effective as adding it to water (March 10, 2000).” In an earlier editorial (Feb 25, 2000), the editors stated: “It is fluoride’s hardening from within that makes their teeth resistant to attacks from caries-producing influences. Painting or brushing it on affects only the surface. It helps, but marginally by comparison, and it doesn’t help the kids who don’t get it.” If these editors had read the CDC to whom they often refer, they wouldn’t have made such a large mistake about the way fluoride works. As the CDC (1999) states, “laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.” It is interesting to note, however, that it’s not only editors who make the mistake about how fluoride works, Easley does it himself in his own published papers. In his paper “Fluoridation: Triumph of Science over Propaganda,” Easley states, “the fluoride in the water is incorporated into the enamel of developing teeth in children below the age of 16, making their teeth more resistant to decay for a lifetime.” 25) Easley: Who supports community water fluoridation? *American Medical Association, established in 1847 with 296,000 members *American Dental Association established in 1859 with 141,000 members *American Dietetic Association established in 1917 with 70,000 members *American Academy of Pediatrics established in 1930 with 49,000 members *American Academy of Family Physicians established in 1947 with 84,000 members *American Public Health Association established in 1872 with 50,000 members *National Academy of Sciences (1863) Institute of Medicine *U.S. Public Health Service (1798) *National Institutes of Health (1891) *Centers for Disease Control (1946) *World Health Organization (1946) Also the American Water Works Association (1881) with 52,000 members, who represent water plant operators, water engineers, and public water system administrators. 25) Our Response: While this list sounds impressive, and is doubtless the reason many citizens, councilors and editors believe that fluoridation is safe and effective, (without bothering to do their own reading of the scientific literature on this issue), one has to ask whether each of these organizations have done their own homework or independent analysis and research. If not, on whose analysis are they relying? What one is likely to find is that many of these organizations have not done their own independent review but support fluoridation because the US Public Health Service supports it (the CDC & the NIH are a part of the US Public Health Service, others receive funding from the US PHS). Brian Martin articulated this point in his book, Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate. “Most of the endorsements,” Martin writes, “have been made on the basis of earlier endorsements by a few key organizations, in particular the USPHS and the ADA. At best, endorsing bodies relied on advice from a small number of experts, almost all of whom were committed promoters of fluoridation.” What this list more accurately represents, therefore, is not the outcome of thorough up-to-date objective analysis of the issue, but rather a superficial appearance of a strong scientific consensus, where, in actual fact it does not exist. What we have is a political consensus. Such an explanation is quickly confirmed when one seeks to find the basis of these, and other organizations, support for this measure. Very few of these organizations can present a coherent defence of their position without resorting to other “authorities”. 26) Easley: Who supports fluoridation? *credible & respected scientific & professional organizations that have been around for a long time; *organizations with real offices & peer reviewed journals; and *organizations that can be found in the phone book! – today and tommorrow 26) Our response. This is nice rhetoric but it doesn’t actually substitute for good scientific data and arguments. 27) Easley: Who opposes fluoridation? Not any credible scientific or professional organizations. Groups you never heard of, groups with a few members; groups using multiple names to try to make it look like there is “overwhelming opposition”; groups who misinform and threaten; groups who fraudulently market self-published propaganda as science; groups who believe that fluoridation is a conspiracy; groups with no professional credibility or scientific standing; groups with no history; even a labor union, controlled by a couple of members whose sole selfish motives are to undermine the consumer protection activities of their federal employer; and groups who won’t be around tomorrow to be held accountable for the results of their propaganda. 27) Our response: If Easley really believes this, then he must believe that countries like Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Japan, were only recently formed, have no credibile scientific organizations, no offices, no telephone numbers and won’t be around tomorrow to pay for their mistaken rejection of fluoridation! Also, it is ironic that Easley made these comments at the Wellington Forum, because there on the same panel with him were both Dr. Hardy Limeback, D.D.S, Ph.D., President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research and Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto and Dr. William Hirzy, a Ph.D. in organic chemistry, health risk assessment scientist for the EPA and Senior Vice-President of the EPA’s Headquarters Professionals Union, which represents over 1600 scientists, and incidentally has an office and a telephone! Both Limeback and Hirzy believe fluoridation’s health risks far outweigh any marginal benefits. Moreover, Easley’s comments on citizens groups are unbecoming. Why insult citizens who have worked so hard for many years to raise awareness on this issue, and who, unlike Easley, have had to work without the benefit of taxpayer funds. While we suspect Easley may not be aware of this, most movements towards greater social and environmental justice start with exactly those kinds of “groups you never heard of” which don’t have expensive offices and paid staff. Easley’s contempt of such “unofficial” groups does not reflect well on his notion of a participatory democracy. 28) Easley: Community water fluoridation is an example of a perfect public health measure: It is safe, it is effective, it is efficient, it is economical, it is socially equitable, it is environmentally sound, & it represents good public policy. 28) Our Response. Repeat a lie enough times and… 29) Easley: I’d like to close with a quote from John Harris, who is Director of the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy at the University of Manchester, which I think very nicely summarizes the issue around fluoridation: “In considering the ethics of fluoridation, one might legitimately reverse the question and ask if fellow citizens are entitled to impose not only a disadvantage on the community at large, but impose actual deaths and the risk of death on children for the sake of a minor dimunition in the range of choices available? We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large. When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.” Thank you. 29) Our response: This assertion is ridiculous. Whose imposing death on anyone? We would be interested for any citation for deaths of children or adults which have resulted from lack of fluoridated water. On the other hand there are well documentated cases of deaths from malfunctioning of fluoride delivery equipment (see www.fluoridealert.org/accidents.htm). Moreover, by denying water fluoridation as an option one does not deny the right of anyone to seek fluoride treatment if they so desire it. Fluoride is readily available in the form of fluoridated toothpaste. In fact, it is so readily available it is very hard in the US to purchase toothpaste which does not have fluoride in it. OUR CONCLUSIONS: Easley’s single-minded and zealous promotion of fluoridation prevents him from giving an objective analysis of this issue. * He inaccurately characerizes fluoride as an essential nutrient, which it is not. * He exaggerates the benefits of fluoridation by claiming a 40-60% reduction in dental decay in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities, when the largest recent study done on U.S. teeth was only able to cite an 18-25% reduction (a reduction found by using a more stringest standard than DMFTs). Other recent major studies from New Zealand indicate very little significant difference between dental decay in fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities. * He greatly underestimates the seriousness of dental fluorosis in fluoridated communities, and while claiming safety no less than three times, cites not one single study to rebut the concerns about oesteosarcoma in young males, hip fractures in the elderly, damage to the central nervous system, interference with the pineal and thyroid glands and the plight of those supersenstive to fluoride. * Nor does he address the key finding by many leading dental researchers that the benefits of fluoride are topical not systemic. Thus he offers no cogent argument as to why anyone who wishes to use fluoride to fight tooth decay would flush their whole bodies with fluoridated water when they can simply apply fluoride in toothpaste directly to their teeth. Such an approach minimizes the risks and maximizes the benefits. By remaining entirely focused on the US, Easley is able to point out the number of communities being fluoridated, without acknowledging that the majortiy of West European countries as well as Japan do not fluoridate their water, and have not suffered the dreaded consequences of which Easley warns. Much more of Easley’s argument rests on unsupported and dubious economic analysis than on considerations of safety or the ethics of forcing fluoride on people who don’t want it, don’t need it or are particularly supersensitive to it. The same apparent disdain Easley exhibits for the recipient of this misguided policy, is reflected in his dismissal of citizen involvement in the debate about fluoridation and his childlike dismissal of the credentials of his opponents. For someone, so dismissive of a body of opinion which has included 12 Nobel Prize winners in medicine and chemistry, as well as many European countries, his own ability to handle his arguments in an objective and scientific fashion is embarassing. In short, Michael Easley is a propagandist, not an objective scientist. Of course, in the US which champions the right to free speech he has every right to be a propagandist, to promote his own particular point of view. However, we hope that we have shown enough to encourage any citizen or decision maker that Easley’s presentation falls far short of what is necessary to win an argument, either in the arena of common sense or in science. Hopefully they will avail themselves a more balanced view of this serious issue. Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY 13617. & Mike Connett, Webmaster, The Fluoride Action Network, http://www.fluoridealert.org REFERENCES FOR OUR RESPONSES. Alberts & Shine (1998). Letter from Bruce Alberts, Director, National Academy of Sciences and Kenneth Shine, President, Institute of Medicine to Albert Burghstahler. Nov 20, 1998. ATSDR (1993). Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F). U.S. Department of Health and Human Service. ATSDR/TP-91/17. Brunelle, J.A. and Carlos, J.P. (1990). J. Dent. Res 69, (Special edition), 723-727. Burgstahler,A. et al (1998). Correspondence, Fluoride, 31 (3), 153-157. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1990-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. MMWR Weekly October 22, 1999: 48(41);933-940. www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm Chicago Tribune (1999). The Tarnished Image of Dr. Koop (Editorial). Nov. 2, 1999. Chinoy, N.J. et al (1994) Transient and reversible fluoride toxicity in some soft tissues of female mice. Fluoride, 27, 205-214). Colquhoun, J. (1987). Child Dental Health Differences in New Zealand. Community Health Studies, XI, 85-90. Colquhoun, J (1997) “Why I changed my mind on Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 1-16. www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm Connett, P. (2000). Fluoride: A Statement of Concern. Waste Not #59. Waste Not, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617 on web at www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm De Stefano, T.M. (1954) Bull. Hudson County Dent. Soc. 23:20. DHHS (1991). In, Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Department of Health and Human Services, USA. De Liefde, B. (1998). The Decline of Caries in New Zealand Over the past 40 Years. New Zealand Dental Journal, 94, 109-113 DenBesten, P (1999). Biological mechanism of dental fluorosis relevant to the use of fluoride supplements. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol., 27, 41-7. Diesendorf, M.(1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature, 322, 125-129. Easley, M. (1996). Fluoridation: A Triumph of Science Over Propaganda. American Council on Science & Health: Health Priorities. Vol 8, No. 4. www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/0804/fluoridation.html Featherstone, J.D.B. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association. 131, 887-899. Fejerskov O et al. Dental Fluorosis – a handbook for health workers. lst edition, Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1988. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (1990). Letter from Susan Allen, Fluoridation Coordinator, Public Health Program, to Herb Polson, Director of Inner City Governmental Relations, St. Petersburg.( May 7, 1990) www.fluoridealert.org/low-profile.htm Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. (1992). Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis International 2, 109-117. Heller KE et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying Water Fluoride Concentrations. J of Pub Health Dent, 57;No. 3, 136-143. Hileman, B. (1988). Fluoridation of water. Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News. August 1, 1988, 26-42. www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm I.O.M. (1997) Dietary reference intake for calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, vitamin d, and fluoride, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, August 1997. Jones, J. (2000). Health Officials “On the Rope”s Over Fluoride”. Press release from the National Pure Water Association, 5, 3-6, August 12. Kumar, JV and Green, E.L. (1998). Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children. NY State Dental Journal, February, 41-48. Kunzel, W. and T. Fischer (1997). Rise and fall of caries prevalence in German towns with different F concentrations in drinking water. Caries Res 31(3): 166-73. Lalumandier JA et al (1995). The prevalence and risk factors of fluorosis among patients in a pediatric dental practice. Pediatric Dentistry – 17:1, 19-25. Martin, Brian. (1991). Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate. State University of New York Press; Albany, New York. Morgan L et al (1998). Investigation of the possible associations between fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and childhood behavior problems. Pediatric Dentistry – 20:4, 244-252. Nader, R. (1971) Ralph Nader Discusses Fluoridation. Let’s Live. June. www.fluoridealert.org/nader.htm Nesin, B.C. (1956) J. Maine Water Util. Assn. 32:33. O’brien, M. (1993). Children’s Dental Health in the United Kingdom. Social Survey Division, Office of Population, Census and Surveys (OPCS). Pendrys, David. (1995). Risk of Fluorosis in a Fluoridated Population: Implications for the Dentist and Hygienist. Journal of the American Dental Association. Vol 26. 1995. Reeves, Thomas. (2000). Manufacture of F chemicals. Letter. (June 1, 2000). Steelink, C. (1982). Letter to Chemical and Engineering News, July 27, pp 2-3. Schuld, A. (1999). How Do Fluorides Interfere With Thyroid Function. Fluoride Watershed, Journal of the National Pure Water Association, 5, 3-6, NWPA, 12 Dennington Lane, Crigglestone, Wakefield, WF4 3ET, UK, see also Schuld’s web site: www.bruha.com/fluoride/ Susheela, A.K. (1993). Prevalence of endemic fluorosis with gastrointestinal manifestations in people living in some North-Indian villages. Fluoride, 26, 97-104. Susheela, A.K. (1998). Scientific Evidence on Adverse Effects of Fluoride. Presented to Members of Parliament & LORDS, House of Commons, Westminister, London, October 20, 1998. Sutton, P.R.N. The Greaatest Fraud: Fluoridation. Kurunda Pty. Ltd., Lorne, Australia, 1996. ISBN 0 949491 12 8 Teotia, S.P.S. and M,Teotia (1994) Fluoride, 27 (2) 59-66. Townsend Letter for Doctors (1994). Middletown, Maryland Latest City to Receive Toxic Spill of Fluoride in their Drinking Water. October. 1124-1125. www.fluoridealert.org/accidents.htm Waldbott, G.L., Burgstahler, A.W. and McKinney, H.L. Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas, 1978. Williams JE et al (1990). Community Water Fluoride Levels, Preschool Dietary Patterns, and The Occurrence of Fluoride Enamel Opacities. J of Pub Health Dent; 50:276-81. Yiamouyiannis, J.A. (1990). Water Fluoridation and Tooth decay: Results from the 1986-87 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren. Fluoride, 23, 55-67. Yiamouyiannis, J. (1998). Presentation given at the ISFR XXII conference, Bellingham, Washington, August, 1998. The 18 studies on Hip Fracture and Fluoride Exposure since 1990. 1. Cauley, J., P. Murphy, et al. (1995). “Effects of fluoridated drinking water on bone mass and fractures: the study of osteoporotic fractures.” J Bone Min Res 10(7): 1076-86. 2. a) Cooper, C., C. Wickham, et al. (1991). “Water fluoridation and hip fracture.” JAMA 266: 513-514 (letter, a reanalysis of data presented in 1990 paper). 2. b) Cooper, C., C. Wickham, et al. (1990). “Water fluoride concentration and fracture of the proximal femur.” J Epidemiol Community Health 44: 17-19. 3. Danielson, C., J. L. Lyon, et al. (1992). “Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population.” Jama 268(6): 746-748. 4. Hegmann, K.T. et al (2000) the Effects of Fluoridation on Degenerative Joint Disease (DJD) and Hip Fractures.Abstract #71, of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society For Epidemiological research, June 15-17, 2000. Published in a Supplement of Am. J. Epid. 5. Hillier, S., C. Copper, et al. (2000). “Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case control study.” The Lancet 335: 265-269. 6. Jacobsen, S., J. Goldberg, et al. (1992). “The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older; a national ecologic study.” Annals of Epidemiology 2: 617-626. 7. Jacobsen, S., J. Goldberg, et al. (1990). “Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: US white women aged 65 years and olders.” J Am Med Assoc 264(4): 500-2. 8. Jacobsen, S.J. et al (1993). Hip Fracture Incidence Before and After the Fluoridation of the Public Water Supply, Rochester, Minnesota. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 743-745. 9. a) Jacqmin-Gadda, H. (1995). “Fluorine concentration in drinking water and fractures in the elderly.” JAMA 273: 775-776 (letter). 9 b) Jacqmin-Gadda, H., A. Fourrier, et al. (1998). “Risk factors for fractures in the elderly.” Epidemiology 9(4): 417-423. (An elaboration of the 1995 study referred to in the JAMA letter). 10. Karagas,M.R. et al (1996). “Patterns of Fracture among the United States Elderly: Geographic and Fluoride Effects”. Ann. Epidemiol. 6 (3), 209-216. 11. Keller, C. (1991) Fluorides in drinking water. Unpublished results. Discussed in Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B,(1992) Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis Int. 2, 109-117. 12. Kurttio, P., N. Gustavsson, et al. (1999). “Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: A cohort analysis in Finland.” American Journal of Epidemiology 150(8): 817-824. 13. Lehmann R. et al (1998). Drinking Water Fluoridation: Bone Mineral Density and Hip Fracture Incidence. Bone, 22, 273-278. 14. Li, Y., C. Liang, et al. (1999). “Effect of Long-Term Exposure to Fluoride in Drinking Water on Risks of Bone Fractures.” Submitted for publication. Contact details: Dr. Yiming Li, Loma Linda School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, California, Phone 1-909-558-8069, Fax 1-909-558-0328 and e-mail, Yli@sd.llu.edu 15. May, D.S. and Wilson, M.G. Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic analysis. Unpublished data, discussed in Gordon, S.L. and Corbin S.B.,(1992), Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Inflruenbce on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis Int. 2, 109-117. 16. Phipps, K. R. (1999). Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density and fractures. R01DE10814-02. HSR/96101800. USA, Oregon Health Sciences University, 611 SW Campus Dr, Portland, OR 97201, IR: (503) 494-8895,. 199309: National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) – Grant: Noncompeting Continuation (5). To be published in the British Medical Journal. 17. Sowers, M., M. Clark, et al. (1991). “A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure.” American Journal of Epidemiology 133: 649-660. 18. Suarez-Almazor, M., G. Flowerdew, et al. (1993). “The fluoridation of drinking water and hip fracture hospitalization rates in two Canadian connunities.” Am J Public Health 83: 689-693. See also: Riggs, B.L. et al (1990). Effect of Fluoride treatment on the Fracture Rates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis. N. Eng. J. Med., 322, 802-809. References on fluoride’s TOPICAL versus SYSTEMIC mechanism of action. Burt, B.A. (1994). Letter. Fluoride, 27, 180-181. Carlos, J.P. (1983). Comments on Fluoride. J.Pedodontics. Winter, 135-136. Featherstone, , J.D.B. (1987) The Mechanism of dental decay. Nutrition Today, May/June, 10. Featherstone, J.D.B. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association. 131, 887-899. Fejerskov, O. et al (1981) Rational use of fluorides in caries prevention. Acta. Odontol. Scand., 241-249. Levine, R.S., (1976). The action of fluoride in caries prevention: a review of current concepts. Brit. Dent. J. 140, 9-14. Limeback, H. (1999). A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27, 62-71. Limeback, H. (2000a). Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to the water. Letter. www.fluoridealert.org Limeback, H. (2000b) Videotaped Interview. available from GGVideo, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617. Tel: 315-379-9544. Fax: 315-379-0448. E-mail: ggvideo@northnet.org and www.FluorideAlert.org/limeback-video.htm Margolis, H.C. and Moreno, E.C. (1990). Physicochemical Perspectives on the Cariostatic Mechanisms of Systemic and Topical Fluorides. J. Dent. Res 69 (Special Issue) 606-613. Shellis, R.P and Duckworth, R.M.(1994). Studies on the cariostatic mechanisms of fluoride. Int. dent. J. 44, 263-273. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON FLUORIDATION See: www.FluorideAlert.org

Fluoride Action Network | 802-338-5577 |info@fluoridealert.org

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

TOP 20 FLUORIDE NEWS STORIES OF 2011

 

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

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

 

SOURCE:  New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc., PO Box 263, Old Bethpage, NY  11804

In New Jersey, a Battle Over a Fluoridation Bill, and the Facts

By KATE ZERNIKE

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.”

Thanks to the New York Times.

Letter 17 to FDA

Cardiovascular Disease – Selmer Tennessee – EPA vs. FDA as Responsible for Fluoridation

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 Services
Public Health Service
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Office of Regulatory Policy
Rockville, MD 20857

Dear 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 20^th century’. How long this scheme continues is entirely up to the FDA, and no one else.

Sincerely,

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

References:

1. National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, Washington, D.C., 2006.
2. Sauerheber, R., Chemical Analysis of Fluoride Poisoning from a Public Water Supply, submitted for publication in the Journal of Environmental Health, 2010.
3. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fluoride and Hydrogen Fluoride, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2003.
4. Osmunsen, B., presentation to the International Fluoride Conference, Toronto, Canada, 2007.
5. Hardy, L., Mass harm from fluoridation, National Health Federation Bulletin, October, 1974.
6. Xu, R. and Xu,R., Electrocardiogram analysis of patients with skeletal fluorosis, Fluoride, vol. 30, No 1, 16-18, 1997.
7. Varol, S., et.al., Impact of Chronic Fluorosis on Left Ventricular Diastolic and Global Functions, The Science of the Total Environment, 408, No. 11,  2295-98, 2010.
8. Varol, S., et.al., Aortic Elasticity is Impaired in Patients with Endemic Fluorosis, Biological Trace Element Research, 133, No. 2, 121-27, 2010.
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

 

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, Yuxin^a; Berenji, Gholam R.^a; Shaba, Wisam F.^a; Tafti, Bashir^a; Yevdayev, Ella^a; Dadparvar, Simin^b

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 kV_p, 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 (SUV_max) 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 SUV_max in coronary arteries between patients with and without a history of cardiovascular events. The average coronary SUV_max 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.

References

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 K_sp 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.

 

To: richsauerheb@hotmail.com

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

 

 

International Bottled Water Association Disputes New York Times Article On Children’s Cavity Rates

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 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

Chukar Cherry Company 17-Oct-05

Department of Health and Human Services	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.

1. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994).
2. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956).
3. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden. URL:
4. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O. Box 76082, Washington, D.C. 20013.
5. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt B.A., Keels ., Heller KE. J. Dent. Res. 2000 Feb;79(2):761-9.
6. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).
7. Effect of high fluoride water supply on childrens intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu,

 

X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)

1. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995).
2. Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998).
3. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai,

 

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.

 

1. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. and Morin, P. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.
2. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. and Coplan, M.J. Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999).
3. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 1-16 (1997).
4. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto.
5. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990.

1. Tyler Folsom
   October 23rd, 2011 at 17:53 | #1

   Reply | Quote | Advanced edit

   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.

2. JANET MCMAHAN
   September 21st, 2011 at 16:51 | #2

   Reply | Quote | Advanced edit

   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.

Fiscal Summary

Increase State Expenditures – $213,900/General Fund $428,500/Environmental Protection Fund Increase Local Expenditures – Exceeds $4,000,000*

Bill Summary

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

New Jersey Ignores Fluoride Dangers in New Legislation

You might also like these articles:

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…

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 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.

In Her Own Words – Golda Starr the Fluoride Detective

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 3^rd 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 3^rd 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.

Where Was the Fluoride Coming From?

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.

The Decline of Elderly Health

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.

Why Doctors are Clueless on Fluoride

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.

You might also like these articles:

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,

 

SecureArkansas@gmail.com
SecureArkansasNetwork.org

Ten million dogs can’t be wrong

As ‘Yuck Factor’ Subsides, Treated Wastewater Flows From Taps

By FELICITY BARRINGER

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.

Thanks to: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/science/earth/despite-yuck-factor-treated-wastewater-used-for-drinking.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23

The Top Twelve Reasons Why You Should Hate the Mortgage Settlement

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!

http://www.celdf.org/celdf-press-release-pittsburgh-council-votes-to-ban-upstream-poisoning-of-city-residents-and-the-environment-caused-by-corporations-fracking-for-shale-gas

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

Messages in this topic (4)

 

 

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

Watsonville Tap Water Will Not Have Fluoride

 

Read more: http://www.ksbw.com/health/30362951/detail.html#ixzz1lLkaO9vS

Huge victory against GMOs as Monsanto driven out of the UK by consumer protests

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) A massive victory against Monsanto and genetically engineered seeds has been achieved in the United Kingdom today. Monsanto has announced a total withdrawal from the UK, shuttering its Cambridge-based wheat production operation. UK newspaper Daily Mail was instrumental in promoting opposition against Monsanto through its “Frankenstein Foods” educational campaign (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-199884/GM-giant-quits-Britain…).

The paper is now reporting that Monsanto plans to sell off GMO crop-breeding centers in France, Germany and the Czech Republic. Daily Mail reported, “…the company has given up hopes of introducing GM crops to Europe.” (Are you grinning as wide as I am right now?)

The UK government, it turns out, was on the verge of announcing a finding that genetically engineered crops would “pollute the countryside for generations.” Gee, ya think? I wonder why the USDA can’t seem to come to the same scientific conclusion…

Bayer CropScience has also cancelled its planned GMO crop trials in the UK, signaling a near total collapse of agricultural imperialism in the UK.

If they can stop Monsanto in the UK, we can stop them here in the USA!

The defeat of Monsanto and all the other merchants of death who peddle poisonous seeds is, of course, a powerfully positive sign for those who are trying to protect life in the United States. We know that GMOs are death for agriculture, death for bird populations, death for honey bee pollinators, and death for the soils. We know that Monsanto is the most evil corporation on the planet (http://www.naturalnews.com/030967_Monsanto_evil.html), willing to destroy the future of life on our planet in exchange for a quarterly profit.

We also know that the public is joining the fight against GMOs. A massive effort is already underway to mandate the labeling of GMOs on foods sold in California (http://www.naturalnews.com/033763_GMOs_California_ballot_initiative.h…). A similar effort has begun in Washington state. Many other states are considering similar legislation.

The FDA and USDA, meanwhile, have proven they are total sellouts, corrupted by powerful corporations, worshipping the technology of death, and serving as outright betrayers of the American people. Death merchants like Bill Gates — the depopulation agenda pusher — continue to try to pimp GMOs by calling them “high-tech agriculture.” They buy media influence with their billions of dollars (http://www.naturalnews.com/034859_Bill_Gates_mainstream_media_influen…), and they corrupt members of Congress with campaign money. They are literally trying to destroy modern agriculture in North America as a way to control every seed, every patent, and every grain of food that appears on a dinner plate in America… it is an agenda of total domination.

And yet… we can stop them. We the People have the power to end agricultural imperialism in North America and around the world. We have an opportunity to stop the death merchants, expose the deceptions, mandate honest labeling of our foods and send Monsanto, DuPont and other GMO companies packing.

What’s required to accomplish this? Keep reading NaturalNews.com, where we wage a 24/7 battle against the chemical poisoners and death merchants of our world — those who push vaccines, chemotherapy, GMOs, food additives, pesticides and psychiatric drugs. We fight to protect life and protect the future of life on our planet by exposing the poisoners and demanding justice for the People.

Real justice means not having our food poisoned. Not having our crop fields invaded by foreign DNA engineered by Monsanto. Not being forced to inject our children with dangerous vaccines. Not having our raw milk stolen and destroyed by FDA agents. Not having our bodies contaminated with mercury, aluminum and cancer-causing chemicals.

We fight for the restoration of food freedom, medical freedom, health freedom and economic freedom. We seek to protect the rights, freedoms and powers of the individual, and we stand firm against the tyranny of bad government and corrupt corporations. The future belongs to We the People — but only if we have the courage to grasp it and tear it away from the clutches of the evil, twisted corporations who are desperately trying to dominate our world and control everything they can.

Join the fight to outlaw GMOs in North America!

Action items:

• Read www.NaturalNews.com and share our stories, link to our website, tweet our breaking news.

• Support www.ResponsibleTechnology.org

• Read www.OrganicConsumers.org

• Check out www.Non-GMOreport.com

• Sign the petition at www.LabelGMOs.org

• Search for “GMOs” among the 10,000+ videos at www.NaturalNews.TV

• Share the “Just Say NO to GMOs” song by the Health Ranger: http://www.naturalnews.com/NoGMO.html

• Avoid buying non-organic corn, soy, canola and cotton products, as they are almost universally contaminated with GMOs.

• Join the upcoming massive GMO protest in Hawaii!
http://www.naturalnews.com/034860_GMO_Hawaii_protest.html

• Vote with your dollars by purchasing food items that are verified as containing no GMOs!

On January 28, 2012, members of Fluoride Class Action – James Robert Deal – and Washington Action for Safe Water – Audrey Adams, Dr. David John and Ed Mitsukawa – toured Everett Water District’s Lake Chaplain water treatment plant. Mark Weeks conducted the tour. He is the narrator on our voice recording of the visit. His job title is “Drinking Water Processing Analysist”. We were not allowed to take photos or videos of the water plant “for security reasons”. Even without the visual dimension, the interview provides an orientation regarding how water treatment and fluoridation work.

This is what the Certificate of Analysis, Bill of Lading, and Invoice have to say: around 47,000 pounds of acid, around 5,000 gallons, at $.3445 per pound, for a total cost of the shipment of  around $16,200 per load. Mark Weeks says there are around 18 shipments per year, more in summer when use doubles, less in winter, around one shipment every three weeks on average, for a yearly expenditure of around $290,000. Around 330 gallons of fluosilicic acid are pumped into drinking water daily.

To get to Lake Chaplain, go east from Everett on Highway 2:

It is January 28, 2012. I am at the entrance to the Lake Chaplain water treatment plant at around 800 feet above sea level. The main source lake is Spada Lake up at around 1,400 feet above sea level. This area is in the convergence zone. Moisture laden winds off the Pacific go around Mount Olympus and converge here and drop up to 160 inches of rain each year. When a big storm rolls in, there can be as much as a foot of rain or snow in a single day. Cliff Mass explains that Spada Lake will always supply Everett with more water than it can ever use and that the Everett supply system has more capacity than the Seattle system. I am driving the Buick LaSabre that my mother, Elizabeth Abraham Deal left me.

The Everett Water District allows tours. You must make an appointment. Entry to the plant itself is by permission only. The treatment plant is a closed area.

You must press a button and talk to the control room which will open the gate and let you in.

This forest road is immediately to the right of the entry to the treatment plant. The area to the east of Lake Chaplain and leading up to Spada Lake are Forest Service land, and so they are open to the public, although with limitations. There is a self-service sign up. There is no shooting. No fishing is allowed in Lake Chaplain. No bait fishing is allowed in Spada Lake. Only lure fishing is allowed. No motorized vehicles are allowed in either area. You have to pack in on foot. No overnight camping is allowed.

 

This is an audio recording of our treatment plant tour. Mark Weeks conducts the tour and answers our questions, with assistance from John Calhoun.

First recording.

My batteries ran low in my HandyH4N recorder, so I had to change them. I missed some of the interview.

Second recording.

Although we were not allowed to take photos or video of the treatment buildings – inside or out – interior of the building, you can “see” the buildings by following this schematic diagram.

Regarding the various buildings:

The fluoridation building: Fluoride tanker trucks carrying 5,000 gallons of fluosilicic acide back down into an entry bay. The bay is wide and long and slopes down up to a depth of six feet, so that if the truck spilled its entire load, the bay would contain it all. The cement is lined with epoxy so the acid will not burn through it.

The bay has an emergency shower in it, a big rubber house that is screwed into the tanker to offload the silicofluoride, an a smaller pressure hose which is connected to the other end of the tank to force all the liquid out of the tanker.

The fluoride building houses two 6,000 gallon tanks and a smaller mixing tank. The pipes and tanks are all CPVC. Fluoridation began in 1991, and all the pipes are due for replacement. Mark says that 20 years is the life expectancy for any CPVC pipe. Oddly, the CPVC tanks are not themselves being replaced.

As you enter the building you notice that the glass in the door is etched by the hydrogen flouride, HF, fluoric acid. It is in the air. When I entered the building I smelled a strange smell, and I immediately became dizzy. I should have left the building immediately. If you ever visit a fluoridation building, don’t breathe inside. Do some deep breathing before entering and hold your breath while you are inside.

The building has big fans on the ceiling to draw air out of the building, circulating the air in the building ten times an error. Mark explained that the fluorosilicic acid breaks down into gas. The gas is good at slipping through the joins in the CPVC pipes and tanks. Maybe that is why the pipes are being replaced. Not only is the building vented, but the tanks themselves are vented to outside air. Mark seemed to admit that the tanks leak some hydrogen fluoride.

I will add more later.

FLOCCULATION AND THEN FILTRATION

Water goes into flocculation tanks. The flocculent used is bauxite, aluminum sulfite. Flocculent brings together dirt, iron, magnesium, and microorganisms, which are negatively charged and which would never settle or precipitate without treatment because they are negatively charged and repel each other. The flocculent is positively charged.

Microorganisms concentrate in and around the dirt and minerals, and chlorination is ineffective unless the dirt and minerals are removed. Chlorine is added at several stages because it quickly evaporates out of open pools.

When the filtration medium is backwashed, it is backwashed with finished, that is, fluoridated water. The backwashed flocculent plus minerals, mud, and microorganisms go into a settling pond. Every few years the sediment builds up and has to be removed to a toxic waste storage landfill because there are small amounts of arsenic in it. Where does the arsenic came from? Some comes from the source water, but not all, because the source water is only around 8 ppm dissolved solids, mostly calcium and magnesium.

Some must come from the backwash water, which is fluoridated, and there is arsenic in the fluoridated water because the fluoridation materials contain arsenic. Mark says that the flocculent will precipatate arsenic. A flaw in the design of the facility then that most fluoridation materials are added after flocculation and filtration. The flocculent could remove the arsenic .

ALUMINUM

The use of aluminum as a flocculent is another design flaw – if the water is fluoridated. Flocculation with aluminum always leaves an aluminum residual in drinking water. The fluoride does not join with aluminum at neutral pH. However, in the stomach at acidic pH, aluminum and fluoride form aluminum fluoride, which will slip past the blood-brain barrier. I do not know the alternatives to aluminum as a flocculant, but as long as Everett is fluoridating, it should quit using aluminum as a flocculant.

EVERETT WILL HALT FLUORIDATION FEBRUARY 7 – IT SHOULD NOT RESUME FLUORIDATION

Around February 9, as soon as the current load of silicofluoride was used up, Everett halted fluoridation. The CPVC pipes need to be replaced. Fluoride Class Action takes the position that fluoridation should not resume. See our letter to Jenny Durkin, US Attorney in Seattle.

I will be updating this page with more information about how the water treatment process works.

New Hampshire bills seek to outlaw foreign substances, including fluoride, from being added to public water supplies

(NaturalNews) The State of New Hampshire is quickly gaining momentum to be the first entire US state to outlaw adding fluoride chemicals to public water supplies. The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has reported that two bills currently before committee — HB 1529 and HB 1416 — seek to prohibit the addition of fluoride, herbicides and pesticides, lithium, and, in the case of HB 1416, any unnecessary chemicals into the public water supply.

HB 1529 strictly prohibits “the introduction of fluoride and herbicides into the drinking water of the state,” while HB 1416 prohibits the addition of any chemical substances, including fluoride. A hearing on HB 1416 took place on January 10, 2012, after having been referred to the state’s House Resources, Recreation, and Development committee.

The most promising of the two, HB 1416 received vocal support at the hearing from Rep. Anne Cartwright, who originally introduced the bill, as well as from Reps. Paul Mirski, Bob Kingsbury, and Laurie Pettengill. Other supporters included Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign manager, Roger Masters, PhD, who coauthored a study on fluoride and lead uptake, and a local doctor, public health nurse, and mother, all of whom submitted written testimonies.

The usual suspects of opposition were a host of state agencies, including the NH Dental Association, the NH Oral Health Coalition, the NH Public Health Association, and the NH Department of Health and Human Services. The only actual human beings that expressed personal opposition to the bills were three pediatricians, all of whom happen to be public health members as well.

Supporters of the bill came prepared, though, armed with plenty of questions and facts that blew major holes in the typical pro-fluoride rhetoric. Repeating US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) talking points about the so-called anti-cavity benefits of fluoride simply does not cut it anymore. And according to FAN, most of those on the committee seemed to recognize the flaws in pro-fluoride dogma.

The questions posed to those in support of fluoride addressed things like its uncontrolled dosage, or the high prevalence of dental fluorosis and other health conditions. Fluoride is the only drug forced on the public without consent, after all, and there is no way to regulate intake. And if the recommended daily dosage of fluoride for an adult is one milligram, he or she can only consume a single liter of tap water in most cities before exceeding this amount.

To learn more about the situation in New Hampshire and how you can help, visit:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/NH-Fluoride-Prohibition-Legislation.html?soid=1103759775597&aid=EixCf6SXU9o

 

 

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/034751_New_Hampshire_fluoride_water_supply.html

Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego)
Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92078

January 17, 2012

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Reviewers,

The following information should be of help in evaluating the fluoride water ban petition, FDA2007-P-0346.

As provided to the FDA earlier, detailed statistical analyses by Ziegelbecker [12] indicate a wide variation in teeth caries incidence among people in a large U.S. population that is unrelated to fluoride levels in drinking water. Vitamin D and calcium, rather than fluoride, is important for normal teeth health and development. Variation in caries incidence found among people may be explained by variation in vitamin D and dietary calcium.

It has long been known that vitamin D, necessary for the proper assimilation of dietary calcium through the intestines, decreases dental caries. [Dr. Anthony Norman, world expert on the mechanism of action of vitamin D, is a former colleague.] The late Dr. Linus Pauling, a former mentor, founded the Orthomolecular Medicine organization, and the following description is paraphrased from a published article by that organization. The U.S. Public Health Service in 1950 ignored well-published data and accepted the idea that fluoride added to water might fight tooth decay.

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 19, 2009

Vitamin Deficiency Underlies Tooth Decay

There is especially strong evidence for a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and cavities. Dozens of studies were conducted in the 1930′s and 1940′s [1-11] that concluded that supplementing children with vitamin D prevents cavities.  Between 5,000 and 15,000 IU of vitamin D may be obtained from modest exposure to sunshine in the middle of the day. Recommending that people regularly use the capacity of their skin to make vitamin D is common sense.  1,000 to 2,000 IU per day of vitamin D in supplemental form is safe to help prevent tooth decay.

References:

[1] Tisdall, F.F. The effect of nutrition on the primary teeth. Child Development (1937) 8(1), 102-4.

[2] McBeath, E.C. Nutrition and diet in relation to preventive dentistry. NY J. Dentistry (1938) 8; 17-21.

[3] McBeath, E.C.; Zucker, T.F. Role of vitamin D in the control of dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition (1938) 15; 547-64.

[4] East, B. R. Nutrition and dental caries. American Journal of Public Health 1938. 28; 72-6.
[20] Mellanby, M. The role of nutrition as a factor in resistance to dental caries. British Dental Journal (1937), 62; 241-52.

[5] His Majesty’s Stationery Office, London. The influence of diet on caries in children’s teeth. Report of the Committee for the Investigation of Dental Disease (1936).

[6] McBeath, F.C. Vitamin D studies, 1933-1934. American Journal of Public Health (1934), 24 1028-30.

[7] Anderson, P. G.; Williams, C. H. M.; Halderson, H.; Summerfeldt, C.; Agnew, R. Influence of vitamin D in the prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association (1934) 21; 1349-66.

[8] Day, C. D.; Sedwick, H. J. Fat-soluble vitamins and dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition (1934) 8; 309.

[9] Agnew, M. C.; Agnew, R. G.; Tisdall, F. F. The production and prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association, JADA (1933) 20; 193-212.

[10] Bennett, N. G.; et al. The influence of diet on caries in children’s teeth. Special Report Series – Medical Research Council, UK (1931) No. 159, 19.

[11] Mellanby, M.; Pattison, C. L. The influence of a cereal-free diet rich in vitamin D and calcium on dental caries in children. British Medical Journal (1932) I 507-10.

12] Connett, P., et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, How Hazardous Waste Ended up in our Drinking Water and the Politics that Keep it There, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont, 2010.

Thanks,

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Robert Pocock of Dublin asks:

Are you aware of the FDA’s Medwatch programme designed to permit people to report adverse events of medical devices and drugs ?

Please see this PIP implant story …and the point in it that most women are not even aware of Medwatch !

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/12/30/breast-implant-scandal-shows-regulators-in-dark-on-risk/

While I realise that the FDA has not licensed fluorosilicic acid, nevertheless that does not invalidate the citizen’s right to report an adverse event eg if that citizen has got dental fluorosis.

Best wishes for 2012,

Robert Pocock

***

Report your negative drug reaction to fluoride here:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/medwatch-online.htm

***

From Dr. Richard Sauerheber:

I know people who have reported adverse fluoride reactions to the FDA through that program and nothing much is being done about them. For example one man in NY City was poisoned to near death by a dentist with an oral syringe full of a new form of fluorophosphate. It was squirted on a cavity to ‘kill’ the cavity but was all absorbed sublingually. His urine flow stopped altogether and he was unable to move for 3 days. His eyesight was nearly completely gone for several months. His urine total fluoride was an astronomical value that is usually lethal.  It has been a few years since the incident and he still has a lot of effects. His complaint to the FDA has not produced any warnings.

I think it was good he sent in the report and if someone were to eat a toothpaste tube and collapse these reports are necessary. But for chronic consumption of fluoridated water where there are no provable quick serious effects in most people I’m not sure if it would be worth sending in. For example, I know 3 people who lived in their youth in fluoridated cities and they all now are having bone surgeries, from elbow to hip to kneee replacements, but I doubt the FDA would get excited about it because it took 30 years for that to happen and they have a tendencyy then to blame it on coincidence or something else.

Someone like Audrey Adam’s son with autism though could be appropriate to report and those with genuine fluoride allergy where reactions happen every time and stop when fluoride water is stopped and they reappear when it is consumed again I think also should be sent in.

But keep in mind we already have two large textbooks worth of such cases described in detail by Waldbott and yet the FDA seems impervious to it all.

Richard

 

(click here to go to press releases)

On Monday January 9, 2012, members of Fluoride Class Action, Washington Action for Safe Water, and Americans for liberty met with two attorneys on the staff of the Seattle City Attorney. They are Darby DuComb, chief of staff under Peter Holmes, and Engel Lee, counsel for Seattle Utilities.

Listen to an audio recording of our meeting with Seattle City Attorneys.

 

See video 1. Unfortunately, the opening minutes of the meeting are missing.

See video 2, Raw Footage

***

Read this follow up letter from Fluoride Class Action to the Seattle City Attorneys, January 10 2012

Read this letter sent by Fluoride Class Action to Jenny Durkin, US Attorney in Seattle.

Read Dr. Sauerheber’s reflections on the meeting:

I want to clarify that Brent Foster, in his you tube video, correctly, that the Oregon legislature did not ban fluoridation. What it did is refuse to pass a law requiring it. Local  water districts in Oregon can still vote to fluoridate, as Beaverton and Corvalis has done.

I liked Audreys’ statements about vitamin D in African Americans as a possible link to calcium deficiency, which in turn would lead to increased fluorosis and other harms, including lowered IQ in infants and brain damage and miscarriage in fetuses.

I liked Dr. John’s comment that the Teotia study, the largest in the world on water fluoride, which indeed proves that calcium deficiency causes caries– which fits in with Audrey’s statement – and of course the bogus idea that water fluoride decrease caries incidence.

***

The San Diego city lawyer argued that it will take a KPBS special to wake people up to actually get something done. I contacted KPBS here in San Diego where it originated and they are not interested in the topic in the slightest.  In fact, they refused to televise Dr. Connett when he came to give a seminar to the Graduate School of Public Health. The professor friend of mine who allowed Paul to speak was ridiculed by other faculty in her department.

The story of Harold Hodge is told in detail in The Fluoride Deception by Chris Bryson. It carefully documents many other nefarious activities Hodge was involved with, not just fluoridation.

Hodge was a shill for the atomic weapons industry, the nuclear power industry, the chemical industry, and all sorts of medical/pharmacological interests.

Famously, he was in charge of secretly injecting unwitting patients at the Rochester Hospital with uranium and plutonium, to investigate it’s effects and metabolism.  The patients were supposed to be terminal, which I guess allowed Hodge to feel he wasn’t doing them any harm since they’d be dead soon anyways.  But several lived for decades.  So much for the reliability of medical knowledge in making prognoses!

Hodge founded the American Society of Toxicology, which has long been captive to industry.  He was an advisor to a committee that President Eisenhauer established to investigate one of the county’s first pesticide in food scares.  In the 1950s residues of pesticides were found in cranberries and there was a public outcry.  The committee tried to figure out what to do with the problem, and Hodge basically advised to downplay the risk , which has been the continuing strategy to this very day.

Hodge worked for the CIA developing radio-labelled forms of LSD that CIA wanted to use to investigate what they hoped would be mind-control properties.

Hodge could be called the father of defending toxics use.

***

When I was in medical school at the University of Rochester, Harold Hodge was Professor of Toxicology and Pharmacology.

Hodge was famous and was respected because the Rockefeller’s, through their Foundation, had ensconced him in a very impressive large brand new $6,000,000 multi-storey wing of labs etc off the back of the med. school.  I think this was done to set him up as a world expert on water fluoridation and help push that scheme.

I guess he was the original $6,000,000 man ;-} .

Harold Hodge said at the outset of fluoridation that workers exposed to fluoride in the Manhattan Project had less cavities, and therefore that water fluoridation should be done to decrease cavities.  Hodge left out the fact that fluoride had damaged the teeth of the workers so severely that many of their teeth had fallen out, so of course they had less dental decay.

***

Submitted by:

Dr. David John, M.D.

JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington  98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesRobertDeal.com

January 31, 2012

 

Jenny A. Durkin, US Attorney
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
Seatttle, WA 98101-1271

Posted at: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Seattle/us-attorney

Dear Ms. Durkin,

 

I am writing to point out violations of law which I believe are taking place on a continuing basis. I ask that you investigate these violations and take appropriate action.

∞∞∞

 

My Uncle Hubert died of emphysema brought on by smoking. He wheezed to me before he died that when he was young his medical doctor smoked Camels and recommended them as good for Uncle Hubert’s health.

 

In the process of learning that tobacco was harmful, we learned that what our “trusted professionals” should not necessarily be trusted. We learned that what our “trusted professionals” say is safe and good for us, may in fact be dangerous and bad for us. We learned that we should quit relying uncritically on “trusted professionals” and should examine important issues for ourselves.

∞∞∞

 

I write to you today because there is another harmful chemical which is being imposed on the public. I refer to the fluoridation materials which water districts add to tap water.

 

Around 200 million Americans receive fluoridated tap water. Around 92% of those receive industrial grade silicofluoride. Silicofluoride contains hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals and toxins known to be harmful to health. Around 8% are fluoridated using industrial grade sodium fluoride, which is only slightly less contaminated than silicofluoride.

 

It took 500 years for the world to acknowledge that tobacco was bad for health. I believe we are on the verge of making the same acknowledgement regarding the fluoride-lead-arsenic cocktail we add to our drinking water.

 

 

For more detail, I ask that you read “Who or What is the NSF?” See:

 

www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

NSF is the trade group which certifies fluoridation materials to be safe. The article spells out the violations of law connected with fluoridation. I am sending you a hard copy of the article, but I recommend that you read it online, which will make it easy for you to follow hyperlinks to documents which back up my assertions. Also the online version is updated regularly as new information is obtained.

 

∞∞∞

Since the end of the last Ice Age, farmers had been growing crops organically[1]. However, in the 20^th Century chemists developed super-phosphate fertilizer. They sold it as convenient and quick acting. Faster was better. Previous farmers had done nicely without it. Organic farmers today do nicely without it. Chemists created a market for an unnecessary[2] product that gradually kills off microbial life in soils.

 

Fertilizer plants in Florida and Louisiana[3] cooked rock phosphate in sulfuric acid, and the emissions of fluoride and other toxins polluted the air for miles around. In the 1970s and 1980s the EPA required the plants to capture the emissions with wet scrubbers installed in their smokestacks. The emissions contain silicofluoride, hydrogen fluoride[4], lead, arsenic[5], other heavy metals[6], and other toxins. Instead of the toxins going into the air, they were diverted into the scrubber liquor.

 

But what was to be done with the scrubber liquor? It was illegal to dump it into rivers, lakes, or seas. Fertilizer companies, without approval from any federal or state agency, beginning around 1950, began selling the raw scrubber liquor to water districts, which then piped it into our drinking water at 1.0 ppm, with the level recently reduced to .7 ppm. Once this vice was in place, economic and political forces made it exceedingly difficult to dislodge. Some 200 million Americans drink such slightly polluted water.

 

Before silicofluoride was used to fluoridate, sodium fluoride was used, another industrial grade waste product – from aluminum plants instead of fertilizer plants. Silicofluoride was less expensive and more abundant than sodium fluoride.

 

All 49 producers or resellers[7] of fluoridation materials in the United States issue Material Safety Document Sheets (MSDS) in which they disclaim all liability for any harm whatsoever which fluoridation materials might cause. However, before offering said fluoridation materials for sale, they apply for and obtain certification of their product.

 

The certifying “agency” is the National Sanitation Foundation, known as NSF or NSF International. NSF proudly refers to its NSF 60 certification as “the mark[8]”. It is displayed on certificates of analysis[9]. It is recognized as authoritative by EPA administrators, CDC administrators, states, state agencies, cities, and water districts. The EPA itself finances and approves the NSF 60 standard[10]. It is recognized as authoritative in Canada and other countries the world over. Silicofluoride and sodium fluoride would not be saleable for drinking water fluoridation purposes without such certification.

 

On the NSF web site[11] and in NSF documentation[12], NSF proclaims:

 

The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.

 

Sit down before reading the next paragraph:

 

NSF officials, including one speaking under oath in deposition, have admitted that NSF has has no toxicological studies[13] (see pages 27 and 67) regarding the fluoridation materials which NSF certifies as “safe[14]”, as I document in “Who or What is the NSF?” Again, please see www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.

 

Note that the fertilizer companies which produce the scrubber liquor are on the NSF boards which establish the scrubber liquor standards.  This is a clear conflict of interest. Such conflicts are detrimental to scientific objectivity and make it likely for profits to trump health and safety.

 

Defenders of fluoridation minimize the effect of the lead-arsenic-silicofluoride scrubber liquor cocktail, saying that the amounts of heavy metals and other toxins are small. However, one should not flippantly dismiss even small amounts of such highly toxic substances without thoroughly studying them, including a study of how they can interact each other and their toxicity can be compounded.

 

Silicofluoride contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen[15]. It is impossible to identify[16] any level of a carcinogen which can safely be consumed, including arsenic[17]. California proposed public health goal for arsenic[18] in 2003 was 4 ppt. That is parts per trillion or .004 ppb or .000004 ppm.  California says:

 

“… there is no evidence from methylation patterns [elemental arsenic converting into organic arsenic] that would support a threshold below which there would be no cancer risks.” p. 128.

 

NSF admits that tap water fluoridated at 1 ppm fluoride may contain up to 1.66 ppb arsenic[19], that is 1,600 ppt, which is 377 times the 4 ppt California public health goal. It is irresponsible knowingly to add any arsenic[20] whatsoever to drinking water, although the California goal would imply it is acceptable to add up to 4 ppt.

 

The toxic waste silicofluoride used contains lead[21] and leaches lead from pipes[22]. Blood lead levels are around 70% higher[23] in fluoridated cities[24].

 

 

Some 47 states allow fluoridation to take place only if it is done using NSF 60 certified fluoridation materials. Washington is one of the 47 states. See WAC 246-290-220(3)[25].

 

The Washington Board of Health relies on the loud assurances of the NSF in making its decision to allow local-option fluoridation, to specify the fluoridation materials which may be used, and to set the allowable range of concentrations.

 

Likewise, local water districts rely on NSF certification to make their final decisions to fluoridate. Board and water districts believe in the truthfulness of the NSF 60 certification mark.

∞∞∞

If silicofluoride and sodium fluoride did prevent tooth decay and did not cause any collateral harm to anyone, then maybe this deception could be excused. Unfortunately, the industrial silicofluoride used by Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma and the sodium fluoride used elsewhere is harmful to fetuses and infants in the short term, and it is harmful to all of us in the long term. Public utility standards should be calibrated to be protective of all, but especially of the most vulnerable.

 

As noted above, the toxic waste silicofluoride used contains lead[26] and leaches lead from pipes[27]. Blood lead levels are around 70% higher[28] in fluoridated cities[29].

 

There is no debate over the harmful nature of silicofluoride and sodium fluoride. In fact, the supporters of fluoridation, including the CDC, admit that 41% of children age 12-15 suffer from dental fluorosis[30], that 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and that 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). 8.6% + 3.6% = 12.2%.

 

It is a civil battery and a criminal assault to give 12.2% or more of our children noticeably disfigured teeth. The NRC says that most fluoride gets to children through drinking water and food made with drinking water[31]. The other major source is toothpaste, packing a wallop of fluoride at around 1,500 ppm to 2,400 ppm. Some fluoride gets absorbed through tissues and some is swallowed.

 

The difference between fluoridated tap water and fluoridated toothpaste is that it is easy to avoid the fluoride in toothpaste simply by not brushing with it, while it is difficult and expensive to avoid the fluoride in tap water and food made with tap water.

 

Expert witnesses on all sides of this issue will admit if called to testify that fluoridation is causing hundreds of thousands of kids to have “funky teeth”. The causal connection is admitted and proven. When you add to that the known harm coming from lead and arsenic, the case becomes even stronger.

 

The CDC minimizes the harm by saying it is “cosmetic only”. However, fluorosis is definitely not “cosmetic only” for the 8.6% and the 3.6% who have mild, moderate, and severe fluorosis. Their teeth are ugly[32], and children are ashamed of them. The emotional impact on adolescents is like that of severe acne. Children with fluorosis tend to smile with their lips closed to hide their teeth. And CDC passes over the lead and arsenic problem[33].

 

The tradeoff is an alleged slight reduction in tooth decay in return for fluorosis of an entire mouthful of teeth plus other harms. Caries a can be x-rayed, “drilled, filled and billed” for under $100 each. Dr. Bill Osmunson[34], cosmetic dentist and public health graduate explains that fluorotic teeth, on the other hand, are difficult and expensive to fix, and that the cost of dental veneers and replacements over a lifetime can exceed $100,000. He notes that drinking water fluoridation is good for the cosmic dentistry business. If teeth are fluorotic, then all bones and other calcium rich areas are fluorotic too, because fluoride aggressively seeks out and binds with calcium throughout the body.

 

To the CDC, the EPA, and other pro-fluoridation groups, the disfigurement of 41%, 8.6%, or 3.6% of our children to different degrees is an acceptable casualty rate, a reasonable price to be paid to achieve a dubious reduction in caries, which they admit to be at best only a 17% to 25% reduction. Other studies show no reduction at all or worsening[35].

 

In addition to fetuses and infants, other groups are especially sensitive, including hard laborers and those with diabetes (because they drink so much water), those with kidney disease[36], arthritics and the aged[37], and those with thyroid disease[38]. Further, around one percent of the population is “allergic”[39] or hypersensitive[40] to fluoride and must leave town or take extreme precautions to avoid it. The autistic are especially sensitive to fluoride.

 

In its own publication on its own website the CDC admits that any positive effect of fluoride is topical[41] and not systemic[42], yet the CDC and other pro-fluoridation groups persist in advising us that we should drink and eat fluoride. For those who insist on consuming fluoride, eating a little toothpaste would be far more economical.

 

∞∞∞

 

There is another clear violation of federal law. An FDA regulation at 21 CFR 310.545 prohibits the marketing and sale of any anti-caries drug which contains hydrogen fluoride unless the the seller has first filed an FDA new drug application[43] (NDA) and received FDA approval.

 

Silicofluoride is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride and other components. Hydrogen fluoride is the most immediately toxic component in silicofluoride. Because its charge is neutral (F^-H⁺), it can slip easily through the neutral, non-polar, fatty lipid layer of the stomach lining, and then into the blood stream and the brain. Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma all use silicofluoride which is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride is also referred to as “free acid”[44]. See the Simplot Certificate of Analysis[45] for Everett and the Mosaic Certificate of Analysis[46] for Seattle on the http://fluoride-class-action.com/foia page.

 

Said federal regulation includes a list of elements and compounds, including hydrogen fluoride. The regulation says of the chemicals on the list:

 

…based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses.

 

Then it states:

 

Any OTC [over the counter] drug product … containing any active ingredient(s) as specified in … this section is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of … the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), for which an approved new drug application … is required for marketing.

 

The above hydrogen fluoride regulation is unenforced. Is it overlooked or just plain ignored? In the fluoridation arena you will find many uninforced, overlooked, and ignored laws. Fluoridation – initially with sodium fluoride – got started during World War II and the Cold War. The military, ALCOA, and other industries backed it. They latched onto a legend that natural fluoride in Texas and Colorado reduced decay, although the basis for the reduction was the high calcium levels, not the fluoride. These powerful groups generally got their way during that era. They rewarded universities for supporting fluoridation. The universities graduated physicians and dentists who became featured speaker “trusted professionals”, endorsers and defenders of fluoridation. Most of the “trusted professionals” we rely on are themselves deceived. Fluoridation began without prior approval by any federal or state agency. Since 1945 no agency has had the courage to stop it.

 

∞∞∞

I would identify the following as possible violations of civil law:

 

First, water districts are being swindled. They are being manipulated into spending scarce dollars on a product which is both ineffective for its stated purpose and harmful to users. NSF is not enforcing its own NSF 60 standards, as explained above.  Water districts are fluoridating using materials which do not meet standards set by state law – because NSF is not obtaining the safety studies which it says it is obtaining and which water districts believe are being obtained. This constitutes common law misrepresentation and fraud and thus is a consumer protection violation under 15 USC 45[47] and under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86[48].

 

Second, silicofluoride and sodium fluoride both contain and/or break down into hydrogen fluoride, and thus cannot be sold for anti-caries treatment without prior FDA approval. This is a violation of 21 CFR 310.545[49].

 

Third, Washington law allows fluoridation to take place only with NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials according to WAC 246-290-220(3)[50]. However NSF is not enforcing its own standards. Therefore there are no NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials. Fluoridation therefore should not proceed and should be enjoined.

 

I would identify the following as possible violations of criminal law:

 

First, because common law fraud is taking place and because said fraud is communicated through the mails, the mail fraud section under the RICO Act is being violated under 18 USC 341[51].

 

Second, because consumers of fluoridated water are suffering common law battery and criminal assault, and because profiteers are manipulating and working with others to implement and continue the assault and battery, the law against solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 USC 373[52] is being violated, especially with respect to fetuses and infants.

 

Maybe you can identify other violations.

 

I have detailed the facts which constitute violations of law in the attached document entitled “Who or What is the NSF?” which can also be read online at

 

www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.

 

I ask that you listen to a presentation made to the Seattle City Attorney’s office on January 9. This will give you a quick summary of the issues. Follow this link:

 

http://fluoride-class-action.com/meeting-with-seattle-city-attorneys-1-9-2012.

 

I urge you to file for an immediate precautionary injunction to halt fluoridation in the state of Washington.

 

Note: I write for and represent only Fluoride Class Action.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

 

The latest revision of letter can be read online at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Seattle/us-attorney

 

 

---

1-14-12

 

Tour of Everett Water Treatment Plant at Sultan.

 

Let’s use January 28, Saturday, as the tentative date. Lets tell as many people as possible and see if that date works. I will try to get KSER Radio to announce it.

 

It is not hard to get to. You can go out either 522 to Monroe and then on 2 to Sultan.

 

Or you can go east from Everett on Hwy 2. The filtration and fluoridation plant is immediately to the south of Lake Chaplain.

 

http://washington.hometownlocator.com/maps/feature-map,ftc,1,fid,1517626,n,lake%20chaplain.cfm

 

Or we could organize carpools.

 

Regarding the meeting with the City Attorneys on Monday, this is my follow up letter.

 

http://fluoride-class-action.com/the-fluoride-maze

 

We are still waiting for the video, Tim.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of CA, San Diego
Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069

January 14, 2012

 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Reviewers,

This information is in support of the FDA petition 2007-P-0346.

I mailed the following letter to local city officials who recently were forced by State officials, at the request of Federal officials from the OHD of the CDC, to begin industrial fluosilicic acid injections into all San Diego city water supplies in spite of two city elections voting otherwise.

Dear San Diego City Council and Public Utilities Officials,

As you know, the intent of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act is to prohibit any requirement for the addition of substances into water other than to sanitize it.  You are now adding fluosilicic acid diluted hazardous waste into water to treat teeth, and you say CA State law forces you to do so in spite of wording in the SDWA.

Could you then at the very least honor the mission of that State law, to improve teeth, by considering getting at the root of the problem of cavity causation, for example by providing calcium nutrition and counseling for residents with any calcium deficiency and high dental caries incidence (see graph below) — instead of broadly treating everyone with synthetic industrial fluoride through public water? This way calcium can be provided to help build strong teeth where it is actually needed.

Fluoride has side effects including tooth fluorosis and bone weakening that calcium does not cause. After 30 years of detailed studies on four hundred thousand children [1] it was published that dental caries increase a massive 16 times higher in incidence in children with calcium-deficient diets, which occurs whether water contains appreciable fluoride or not. The authors concluded:

“The only practical and effective public health measure for the prevention and control of dental canes is the limitation of the fluoride content of drinking water to < 0.5 ppm, and adequate calcium nutrition (dietary calcium > 1 g/day).”

[1] S P S Teotia and M Teotia,  Dental Caries: A Disorder of High Fluoride and Low Dietary Calcium Interactions (30 Years of Personal Research), Fluoride 1994; 27(2): 59-66.

Caries Incidence % vs. Low or Normal Calcium and Low or 1 ppm Fluoride

The percentage of dental caries are graphed as a function of the presence of dietary calcium deficiency (blue bars), accompanied with either low fluoride (left) or approximately 1 ppm fluoride levels in drinking water (right), and normal dietary calcium (red bars) accompanied with either low fluoride (left) or 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water (right). The data are from Teotia and Teotia for a 30 year study of 400,000 children. Notice that the highest incidence of caries was found in children with a calcium deficient diet where water was approximately 1 ppm fluoride. The lowest caries incidence was found in children with low fluoride water while also having adequate dietary calcium.

The reason for these results are obvious. Calcium is the chief ingredient in normal teeth enamel, and normal crystalline hard enamel that resists cavities can only form in children in the absence of fluoride-induced enamel fluorosis. Fluoride is unable to counter increased caries incidence from calcium dietary deficiency, and in fact fluoride contributes to caries incidence in this case. Fluoride also causes tooth fluorosis in children, whether on calcium-deficient or normal calcium diets (not shown for brevity).

Doesn’t it make sense to use the best available mineral to help teeth? If you are planning to continue disseminating a substance to be taken internally to affect teeth, then shouldn’t it be a substance like calcium, that is a normal dietary component, has a daily dietary requirement, is a mineral nutrient and an essential body component required for teeth enamel formation, and its deficiency causes conditions favorable to formation of caries? Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has no daily dietary requirement, from the bloodstream can cause tooth fluorosis, and after ingestion produces only 0.02 ppm fluoride ion in saliva [2] unable to affect teeth topically.

[2] National Research Council Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, Washington, D.C., 2006.

Calcium supplementation corrects calcium deficiency, that causes inadequate enamel formation and conditions that lead to dental caries. Let’s treat the causes, insufficiently developed enamel and not brushing after eating sugary foods, rather than after-the-fact attempts to treat the symptom, cavities, with fluoride in drinking water where dosage cannot be controlled, and that is of no significant value as observed in large numbers of studies [3], where the absence of fluoride in drinking water does not itself cause dental caries. Caries are caused by acid secretions from S. mutans metabolizing sugars, where insufficient enamel covering teeth dentyne is the most readily breeched.

[3] Connett, P., et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, How Hazardous Waste Ended up in our Drinking Water and the Politics that Keep it There, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont, 2010.

Thank you again for your attention on this matter,

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.                [Enclosure on calcium deficiency and enamel hypoplasia]

http://www.identalhub.com/article_enamel-hypoplasia-370.aspx

Hypocalcaemia is a specific cause of tooth enamel hypoplasia. Recently evidence has suggested that the etiology of enamel hypoplasia is highly specific. Enamel hypoplasia is seen in children having disorders of calcium homeostasis. Low calcium level in serum is one of the major causes of enamel hypoplasia.

Enamel Hypoplasia and Caries.  Enamel hypoplasia is clinically significant not only because it is disfiguring and the restorative treatment costly, but because it may affect caries susceptibility. There was a strong correlation between hypoplasia in the teeth of British schoolchildren and caries susceptibility. Out of a collection of 1,500 extracted teeth, 74% of very hypoplastic teeth were carious, whereas 80% of the nonhypoplastic teeth were caries–free. Caries has also been associated with hypoplasia in many parts of the Third World. There is no information about the chemical composition of hypoplasia enamel so the exact reason for its greater proneness to caries is uncertain, but it is possible that its irregularity and pits may favor the development of more plaque compared with smooth well-formed enamel.

Enamel hypoplasia is due to many causes. It can be due to high fluoride level or due to some medicines or if the child becomes ill when the teeth which are affected by enamel hypoplasia are being formed. The treatment depends on degree of hypoplasia. Intially the composite restorations are done and if it is more (ie whole of enamel is hypoplastic) then veneers or crowns are indicated in later age when the teeth are fully formed.

 

S.C. Department of Transportation officials … they started pre-treating the major bridges about midnight Monday with 4,000 gallons of salt brine and calcium fluoride mix to keep the ice from sticking. They followed that with more than 125 tons of salt, according to Robert Clark, engineering administrator for the district that covers the Lowcountry.

Read the full article here.

***

Kentucky Transportation workers pre-treated many roads to help keep snow from sticking. …

“But we are prepared, we’ve got close to 20,000 tons of salt, 95,000 gallons of calcium fluoride, of course we can make brine at each county barn on site,” says Keirsten Jaggers from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.

Read the full article here.

***

From Richard Windsor

Dear James,

There is no way physically that calcium fluoride is useful as a de-icing agent. I’d guess, from my previous contact with the press, that it’s a reporters error, calling chloride, fluoride. You are closer to the action than me, ring up the reporter (or send her an email and ask her if she made a mistake.

The reason calcium chloride is used as a de-icer is that it is highly soluble and it has an exothermic reaction on dissolving. it gives off heat. So the increased osmolarity of the solution causes freezing point depression (the solution freezes at less than zero Celsius) and the exothermic reaction of the calcium chloride dissolving initiates a positive feedback loop, the more water formed, the more of the material dissolves and the more heat given off. A near perfect de-icer.

Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, is barely soluble, it has no exothermic reaction and has no more use than grit spread on an icy road to improve traction.

Richard Windsor

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry,
University of CA, San Diego Palomar College
1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069
January 14, 2012

Dear San Diego City Utilities and Officials,

As you know the intent of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act is to prohibit any requirement for the addition of substances into water other than to sanitize it.  You are now adding fluosilicic acid diluted hazardous waste into water to treat teeth, and you say CA State law forces you to do so in spite of wording in the SDWA. Could you then at the very least honor the mission of that State law, to improve teeth enamel, by considering getting at the root of the problem of cavity causation, for example providing calcium nutrition counseling where residents with any calcium deficiency and high dental caries incidence (see graph below), instead of broadly treating everyone with synthetic industrial fluoride through public water? This way calcium can be provided to help build strong teeth where it is actually needed. Fluoride has side effects like tooth fluorosis and bone weakening that calcium does not cause. After 30 years of detailed studies on four hundred thousand children [1] it was published that dental caries increase a massive 16 times higher in incidence in children with calcium-deficient diets, which occurs whether water contains appreciable fluoride or not. The authors concluded:
“The only practical and effective public health measure for the prevention and control of dental canes is the limitation of the fluoride content of drinking water to < 0.5 ppm, and adequate calcium nutrition (dietary calcium > 1 g/day).”

 

[1] S P S Teotia and M Teotia,  Dental Caries: A Disorder of High Fluoride and Low Dietary Calcium Interactions (30 Years of Personal Research), Fluoride 1994; 27(2): 59-66.

Caries Incidence % vs. Low or Normal Calcium and Low or 1 ppm Fluoride

                         

 

The percentage of dental caries graphed as a function of the presence of dietary calcium deficiency (blue) accompanied with either low fluoride or approximately 1 ppm fluoride levels in drinking water,  and normal dietary calcium (red) accompanied with either low fluoride or 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water. The data are from Teotia and Teotia for a 30 year study of 400,000 children. Notice that the highest incidence of caries was found in children with a calcium deficient diet where water was approximately 1 ppm fluoride. The lowest caries incidence was found in children with low fluoride and having adequate dietary calcium.

The reason for these results are obvious. Calcium is the chief ingredient in normal teeth enamel, and normal crystalline hard enamel that resists cavities can only form in children in the absence of fluoride-induced enamel fluorosis. Fluoride is unable to counter increased caries incidence from calcium dietary deficiency and in fact fluoride contributes to caries incidence in such cases. Fluoride also causes tooth fluorosis in children, whether on calcium-deficient or normal calcium diets (not shown for brevity).

 

Doesn’t it make sense to use the best available mineral to help teeth? If you are planning to continue disseminating a substance to be taken internally to affect teeth, then shouldn’t it be a substance like calcium, that is a normal dietary component, has a daily dietary requirement, is a mineral nutrient and an essential body component required for teeth enamel formation, and its deficiency causes caries? Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient, has no daily dietary requirement, from the bloodstream causes tooth fluorosis, and after ingestion produces only 0.02 ppm fluoride ion in saliva [2], unable to affect teeth topically.
Calcium supplementation corrects calcium deficiency that causes inadequate enamel formation and thus conditions that lead to dental caries. Let’s treat the cause, insufficient enamel, and not brushing after eating sugary foods. Let’s not broadly attempt to treat the symptom, cavities, with fluoride in drinking water where dosage cannot be controlled, where absence of fluoride does not cause cavities as demonstrated by these data.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

 

 

 

New Study on Fluoride Shows No Benefits and Major Safety Issues

Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 03 2012 | 13,687 views

 

 

By Dr. Mercola

Fluoride, a neurotoxin that has been linked to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development and brain damage, among many other serious health problems, is sometimes prescribed in supplement form to children ages 6 months to 16 years who live in areas that have non-fluoridated drinking water.

The rationale, which is heavily promoted by government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – or rather its Oral Health Division

Bodies like the American Dental Association (ADA), is that this toxic agent helps reduce cavities – and those children who are “unfortunate” enough NOT to have the poison forced upon them in their drinking water should get their daily dose elsewhere (i.e. in supplement form).

These recommendations now defy rational logic and common sense on two fronts:

1) even promoters of fluoridation now admit that fluoride’s predominant action is on the surface of the tooth and not from inside the body (CDC, 1999) and

2) there are more than 100 published studies illustrating fluoride’s harm to the brain, plus 25 published studies directly linking fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children! In other words, it doesn’t do much (if any) good to swallow fluoride and doing so could be doing significant harm.

Adding insult to injury, new research has further revealed that ingesting fluoride in supplement form does not reduce cavities in primary teeth – and may in fact cause harm.

Why You Need to Get Informed Before Allowing Your Child to Take Fluoride Supplements

A review of 11 studies involving more than 7,000 children showed that the effect of fluoride supplements on primary teeth could not be determined, with one study showing no cavity-reducing effect. Meanwhile, the study revealed the supplements have only dubious cavity-reducing effects on permanent teeth, and no difference was noted between fluoride supplements or topical fluoride for preventing cavities.

Researchers noted:

“In the review, no conclusion could be reached about the effectiveness of fluoride supplements in preventing tooth decay in young children (less than 6 years of age) with deciduous teeth. Moreover, insufficient evidence exists to show whether or not using fluoride supplements in young children (less than 6 years of age) could mottle teeth (fluorosis), an effect of chronic ingestion of excessive amounts of fluoride.”

Adding to the stark lack of supporting evidence, researchers pointed out that 10 out of the 11 trials they reviewed were at “unclear risk of bias,” and the 11th was at “high risk of bias” – leading researchers to conclude “therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements.”

This is not the first time a study has questioned the use of fluoride supplements. In 2008, researchers reviewed 20 reports from 12 trials and similarly concluded:

“There is weak and inconsistent evidence that the use of fluoride supplements prevents dental caries in primary teeth … Mild-to-moderate dental fluorosis is a significant side effect. The current recommendations for use of fluoride supplements during the first six years of life should be re-examined.”

What is so ludicrous about these findings is that fluorosis is associated with the irreversible discoloration of the teeth (yellow and brown spots)  – the very aesthetically unappealing symptoms that most people think and are told the fluoride is supposed to prevent! The CDC admitted in 2010 that 41% of American children between the ages of 12-15 had this irreversible staining of their teeth (CDC, 2010) and in 2005 revealed that minority children are disproportionately impacted by this condition (CDC, 2005, Table 23).

ADA Recommends Fluoride Supplements Despite Evidence of Serious Risks

The truth has always been that fluoride is a toxic agent that is biologically active in the human body where it accumulates in sensitive tissues over time, wreaks havoc with enzymes and produces a number of serious adverse health effects —including neurological and endocrine dysfunctions (NRC, 2006).

Nearly 10 years ago, Belgium banned the sale of all non-prescription fluoride supplements citing well-documented research indicating that ingested fluoride has “considerable potential” for physical and neurological harm, with little evidence of cavity prevention. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), meanwhile, has not found fluoride supplements to be safe or effective, according to the National Institute of Health, which lists a laundry list of fluoride’s effects, including:

Staining of teeth	Unusual increase in saliva	Weakness	Stomach pain and upset stomach	Vomiting
Diarrhea	Rash	Salty or soapy taste	Tremor	Seizures

 

Not to mention, it’s known that over time fluoride accumulates in many areas of your body, including areas of your brain that control and alter behavior, particularly your pineal gland, hippocampus and other limbic areas. One particularly striking animal study published in 1995 showed that fluoride ingestion had a profound influence on the animals’ brains and altered behavior. Pregnant rats given fluoride produced hyperactive offspring. And animals given fluoride after birth became apathetic, lethargic “couch potatoes.”

This study was particularly powerful because the effects were measured using objective computerized evaluations of behavior, to rule out subjective bias by the researchers observing the animals.

For the past 60 years, pregnant women have ingested fluoridated water and used fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula for their babies. If the adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure in animals are true for humans as well, we’d expect to see a striking change in human behavior at this point as well.

And we most definitely do!

One in ten children are now diagnosed with ADHD. While no US agency has funded or attempted to see if this condition has been caused by or exacerbated by fluoride the connection is biologically plausible and worrying. But the attitude of the American health authorities that continue to recklessly promote fluoridation is that the “absence of studies means the absence of harm.”

Aside from the animal studies that show that fluoride damages the brain, and the 25 studies indicating lowered IQ associated with modest to high exposure to fluoride, mild reduction of thyroid function in pregnant women has been shown to produce significant neurological problems in their offspring as well.

Outrageously, there is no mention of the risks or lack of efficacy on the American Dental Association’s Fluoride Supplements Web page, other than mild dental fluorosis. Instead they claim the fluoride supplements are “silently at work fighting decay. Safe, convenient, effective…”

Dental fluorosis is only caused by fluoride, and is typically due to ingesting too much during your developing years, from birth to about 8 years of age. Dental fluorosis is not a merely cosmetic problem, as it is usually an indication that the rest of your body has been exposed to too much fluoride as well.

You Can Opt Out of the Supplements, But it’s Much Harder to Get Fluoride Out of Your Drinking Water

The only positive side to fluoride in supplement form is that you can make a choice of whether or not to take it. In the case of the fluoride that’s added to the water supplies of nearly 75 percent of Americans, you have no choice. It’s there whether you like it or not.

China, in contrast, does NOT allow water fluoridation because it’s too toxic and causes damage, according to their studies. Instead, the waste product from their phosphate fertilizer industry is shipped to the United States, where we add it to our water supply!

This is a very important point: the fluoride added to your water is NOT even pharmaceutical grade.

It’s a toxic industrial waste product, which is also contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The story gets even more convoluted, as now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission show that the original motivation for promoting fluoride and water fluoridation in the United States was to protect the bomb- and aluminum industries other fluoride polluting industries from liability. In the early days some of the sodium fluoride used to fluoridate water supplies in the U.S. came from Alcoa.

A couple of years later, they switched to the even more hazardous waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid from the phosphate fertilizer industry. But none of the studies on fluoride actually used the far more toxic and contaminated hydrofluorosilicic acid that is added to the water supply. Rather, they use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, which while harmful, is not quite as bad as what’s being used for water fluoridation. So, the health hazards are likely FAR worse than any study has so far discerned.

Some proponents of fluoridation believe that the large dilution of these fluoridating chemicals that takes place when they are added at the public water works ameliorates concerns about the known contaminants. However, one of those contaminants is arsenic, which is a known human carcinogen. For the EPA there is no safe level for a human carcinogen. Inevitably, the addition of contaminated hexafluorosilicic acid to the water supply by definition must increase the cancer rate in the U.S. because of the arsenic it contains.

One can argue about how much this cancer risk is increased by, but there is no question that it will be increased. Why would any rational government do that to reduce – at best – a miniscule amount of tooth decay?

For people living in areas with fluoridated tap water, fluoride is a part of every glass of water, every bath and shower, and every meal cooked using that water.

This makes absolutely no sense considering the significant health risks of this toxin — and the data published online by the World Health Organization showing that 12-year-olds in countries that do not fluoridate their water have similar if not better tooth decay rates than countries that do.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

In summary it would seem most rational people would conclude you should avoid using fluoride for its “preventive” benefits. You can easily choose not to take fluoride supplements or buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you’re stuck with whatever your community puts in the water, and it’s very difficult to filter out of your water once it’s added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation.

Earlier this year I joined forces with Dr. Paul Connett to help put an END to water fluoridation in the U.S and Canada. The Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to do just that. Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get Calgary and the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow. I urge you to join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.

Contact Information for Canadian Communities:

• If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at diane.sprules@cogeco.ca.
• The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at aliss@nutrimom.ca.
• The point-of-contact for the Peel region in Ontario, Canada is Rob Brewer. You may email him at FluorideFreePeel@ymail.com. Also see Fluoride Free Peel’s Facebook page.

Contact Information for American Communities:

We’re also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:

• New York City, NY: The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 “prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply.”

A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S. If you live in the New York area I beg you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference.

The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com. Please contact her if you’re interested in helping with this effort.

• Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or fluoride.info@yahoo.com, or by regular mail or telephone:

Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The man has been shamelessly mocked, repeatedly lied about, and cruelly defamed for his legitimate scientific research into the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children. But Dr. Andrew Wakefield is now fighting back against those responsible for viciously denigrating his work and his character by filing a lawsuit against the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which published lies about him, and journalist Brian Deer, who authored many of those lies.

The lawsuit cites several articles and editorials published in BMJ that include “false and defamatory allegations” about Dr. Wakefield and his work. Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, an article written by journalist Brian Deer that was published in BMJ, and an accompanying editorial by Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of BMJ, are two of the defamatory writings named in the suit.

BMJ and Deer, not Dr. Wakefield, have spread lies and misinformation to the public

Contrary to what the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC), BMJ, Brian Deer, and the host of whoring media outlets continue to claim, Dr. Wakefield’s original study was a case series that made no actual claims about a definitive link between MMR and autism. And the observations, which do happen to suggest a link between MMR and autism regression, are not just unique to Dr. Wakefield’s research. Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Amar Dhillon together documented their own independent research that also points to a link between MMR vaccine and autism (http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html).

But it is facts like these that BMJ, Brian Deer, and the rest have conveniently ignored in their witch hunt to destroy the career and life of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who has hardly been given the chance to present his side of the story before the public. This is why many still falsely believe, for instance, that Dr. Wakefield fabricated his research data. This accusation was entirely made up by those that Dr. Wakefield is now suing — or that he is no longer a doctor just because the GMC banned him from practicing in the UK.

Such malicious slander against a man who dared to conduct honest science about a condition that afflicts more and more children every year is outrageous. But it is precisely because Dr. Wakefield’s science conflicts with the medical status quo that the full arsenal of hatred and vilification was drawn upon to destroy him. In reality, though, it is the false information written and spread by the likes of Brian Deer, and published by BMJ, that deserves such relentless scrutiny and punishment.

Be sure to watch this powerful interview between Dr. Wakefield and Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, that took place earlier this year:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186

“It is Deer, Godlee and BMJ who have provided misleading information regarding 12 children’s histories with the malicious purpose of injuring Dr. Wakefield by falsely making it appear that [he] altered, manipulated or misrepresented data for the 12 cases,” says the suit. “In fact, all of the facts and findings in the Lancet paper are supported by the documents for these 12 patients.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/05/andrew-wakefield-sues-bmj-mmr

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego)
Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069
Email: richsauerheb@hotmail.com   Phone: 760-744-2547
January 11, 2012

Dear Anthony Young, San Diego City Council, Mayor Sanders, and Attorney Dumanis,

As a concerned San Diego native I write again to help you understand your rights regarding the use of substances in water to treat citizens of the city. All Water Districts in the U.S. who treat people with industrial fluorides for any putative effect on teeth via the bloodstream after ingestion are responsible for measuring the fluoride level in the blood of citizens they decide to treat. The burden of quality control is on the utilites that administer the agent, not the consumer who is forced to ingest it.

The target blood level stated by the Oral Health Division dental officials within the CDC is 0.2 ppm fluoride [1], but neither the OHD dentists nor most city utilities understand that blood fluoride levels depend on water hardness. People consuming Seattle ultra-soft water (10 ppm calcium) have levels above 0.2 ppm in blood, and water chemists there add calcium chloride along with the fluoridation chemicals to help minimize assimilation [2].  In hard water Texas (safe 300 ppm calcium antidote), where the idea of ‘water fluoridation’ first began, the blood level is below 0.2 ppm.  San Diego water (labeled ‘soft’ by water districts) has a calcium to fluoride ratio of only about 60 mg calcium per 0.8 mg fluoride.  Animal studies show the blood level of fluoride was lowered 4 fold when calcium was administered along with sodium fluoride, compared to sodium fluoride alone.

Those who believe the false claim, that fluoride consumption is harmless long-term, regardless of all the published human and animal studies proving otherwise, do not explain how fluoride, that crosses the blood brain barrier [3] and accumulates in bone permanently [4], somehow magically avoids having any effect on systemic biologic functions. How does this happen? The answer of course is that fluoride indeed causes harm. Look at the 41% of 12-15 year olds in the U.S. having permanent abnormal tooth fluorosis that prevents a normal smile [4]. They are not smiling, and neither are the San Diego residents who know the truth – that industrial fluorides are all toxic calcium chelators [5]. San Diego voters have voted against fluoridation twice, but it is still being forced on them.

Unfortunately after 6 years of consuming aluminum fluoride treated municipal water, the former show elephants of the Wild Animal Park were finally euthanized at the San Diego Zoo this week [6]. One was unable to walk and the other had also deteriorated after both became mentally unstable and unable to follow tasks. These were once bright animals. They could easily follow directions and learn tricks. But the elephant shows had to be canceled a few years after the Park began accepting fluoridated municipal water in 2005. The Park was told in 2005 they would not receive the treated water, but the Park’s utility, the San Pasqual Water District, arranged for the city of Escondido to provide the water that is treated with aluminum and with industrial fluoride [7], thinking without evidence that the water would be healthy for elephants, not realizing their large body to brain volume ratio.

Show elephants consume copious amounts of water because of their daily activity level, over 60 gallons daily, and do not have kidneys designed to remove aluminum fluoride at an intake rate that high. They developed mental aberrations that are known to occur in laboratory animals given aluminum fluoride water at such levels for long time periods [3, 4], including inability to walk from motor brain degeneration. The problem is that aluminum and fluoride together in the acidic stomach form complexes that are assimilated into the bloodstream, causing aluminum accumulation in the brain [4].  Aluminum in water which does not also contain industrial fluoride is not assimilated.

The elephants were transferred from the Wild Animal Park to the San Diego Zoo in January of 2010, and there they were also given fluoridated water to drink. The elephants’ mental deficiencies continued to decline. The were even unable to wander around freely in the enclosure. They were standing vegetables. They were recently euthanized.  Zoo veterinarians have no explanation for what happened to our elephants. They have not been trained in fluoride toxicology, yet they are reluctant to consider aluminum carried by silicofluoride as the toxin that dumbed down their charges.

It is necessary for city officials to request blood testing of citizens in San Diego that are under your care to verify that the target fluoride blood level is maintained with this new radical water district treatment.  Remember that the CA law, that requests ‘fluoridation,’ does not mention the fluoride source of choice nor does it provide protocols for our local water, having only 60 ppm calcium, to achieve a desired blood level of 0.2 ppm fluoride. The CA Dept. of Health merely suggests what the OHD suggests, to use synthetic industrial hazardous waste fluosilicic acid diluted to ’1 ppm’ free fluoride, making no mention of adjustments for water calcium or aluminum content!  It must be emphasized again that both the CDC and the CA Dept. of Health, in detailed letters to me, made it perfectly clear that the city itself bears all responsibility and all liability for the injections designed to treat citizens in San Diego; and monitoring the health effects of animals by either agency is out of the question.

Is it time to halt these injections? Of course it is. The FDA has never approved ingestion of fluoride because it is not a mineral nutrient and in water is an uncontrolled use of a non FDA-approved drug. When added intentionally into water, the FDA decreed fluoride is an unapproved drug. When accidentally or naturally found in water, both the FDA  and EPA rule fluoride is a contaminant. We expect the FDA to ban the intentional injection of fluorides, or to bar the OHD from requesting the injections, soon. But nevertheles in the meantime, cities bear all liability for the injection of fluoride into citizens through public water supplies and because of that fact alone have full legal authority to halt the injections.

We have data from the 50 U.S. states that rank disease incidence as a function of percent of water districts that fluoridate. The data indicate yet again that water fluoridation does not influence teeth decay, but has significant associations with increased tooth fluorosis, mental retardation, cancer and cardiovascular deaths. There was no correlation of increased incidence of Alzheimer’s disease with fluoridation, but cities were not separated between those that treat water also with aluminum from those that do not.

Please let me be clear.  It is possible that the elephants from the Wild Animal Park that were mentally degraded and euthanized at the Zoo this week may have presented with some form of dementia independent of aluminum and fluoride in their water. However, there is little doubt that the massive amounts of aluminum and fluoride, ingested together that causes uptake into brain, hastened their complete demise.  The abnormal tau proteins synthesized in brain in human dementia for unknown reasons have very high affinity for aluminum. Many Alzheimer’s victims have aluminum in large concentrations in brain at time of death.

Nevertheless, the Alzheimer’s Association currently does not know the cause of the high incidence of Alzheimer’s in the U.S. or why San Diego leads the nation in this category of death per capita.  It is no longer assumed by this organization that aluminum is the causative agent. San Diego Water facilities indeed do not inject their own aluminum but report levels on water quality reports.  Metroplitan Water, Los Angeles has injected aluminum as a clarifying agent long before fluoride injections were begun that enhance aluminum assimilation. However, the city of San Diego and Escondido are fully culpable for contributing to the demise of these prize animals by providing no option other than water treated with fluoride that also contained aluminum. There is little doubt that aluminum uptake in brain enhanced the mental condition the animals suffered. Aluminum taken up into the brain where it does not belong cannot hide to exert zero effects on structure and function.  Numerous studies by Varner and coworkers over the last many decades (see Connett, Fluoride and the Brain, Chapter 15, The Case Against Fluoride, 2010) prove fluoride plus aluminm forms complexes that are asslmilated into brain that causes microscopically observed brain degeneration durign long term chronic consumption. The question is why is this seemingly not even more dramatic in the human population that what seems to exist, but remember the human brain is of very high capacity (200 billion cells per brain). Further, lack of effect is merely an impression, not a fact, since Alzheimer’s now is the 6th leading cause of death in the U.S. (North County Times Jan 12, 2012) and in San Diego County is now astoundingly 3rd!!

It is time to halt the inane practice of injecting industrial synthetic fluoride compounds into human drinknig water in an attempt to find a child’s cavity, when nonfluoridated Europe has experienced the same rate of decline in caries incidence that the U.S. has seen during this water ingested fluoride program. Understand again that CA AB733 was based on a false assumption, that swallowed fluoride was assumed to decrease caries, when biochemical measurements prove it cannot–it is present from swallowing in the saliva at only 0.02 ppm, unable to affect teeth topically though CA dental officials with vested interests attempt to ignore this.  And again, no protocols are provided in CA AB733; it merelyy asserts basically to go forth and fluoridate, without details of any kind, as though it were some sort of higher proclamation, when in it is a corrupt order that violates the Safe Drinking Water Act (prohibits any Federal requirement for drugs, foods, or any chemicals added otehr than to sanitize water), and the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (requiring FDA approval for any substance used as a putative treatment in humans) and the Water Pollution Control Act (section 101a). No State law can supercede Federal laws covering public waterways that are Federal property. The Colorado River originates as far North as Wyoming, and the CA aqueduct water originates as far away as creek drainage in Southern Oregon. The Oregon State legislature barred any state requirement for fluoride in Oregon waterways, to protect salmon from the gross mental narcotic effect fluoride is known to exert that causes salmon run collapse.

As a medical research scientist and native San Diegan, I request that you order the Public Utilties Director, San Diego to stop titrating this illegal, unapproved, useless, harmful industrial substance lacking calcium into the water supply that is ingested by the innocent animals and people who reside here in our otherwise fair city.  My brother was offered the position of head computer systems operator by the San Diego Padres.  However, due to concerns over water fluoride (my brother has tooth fluorosis) he has chosen to remain employed at Stanford University and to remain in his home in Morgan Hill.  Morgan Hill is listed as a ‘fluoridated city’ but this is false. The water district chemists there stopped ordering drums of fluosilicic acid hazardous waste decades ago and refuse to inject synthetic fluorides into innocent people that, as a toxic calcium chelator, accumulates into bone permanently lifetime. Many people can remain rational about this, and I think you can do so also.

If you would like additional information to help protect citizens of San Diego from this industrial chemical taken internally, or references or letters from the CDC, FDA, CA DPH or other items, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

References:
[1] Personal communication and e-mail from Donald Nelson, while chief fluoridation officer, CA Department of Health, Sacramento, CA.
[2] Online statements of chemists at the Seattle Water District.
[3] Varner, Brain Research, 1986; Mullenix, Journal of Neurology and Teratology, 1995; Reddy, Journal of Medical and Allied
Sciences, 2011; most data reviewed in [4].
[4] Connett, P.et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, 2010.
[5] Yiamouyiannis, J., Fluoride, the Aging Factor,1986.
[6] Perry, T., Zoo Euthanizes Zoo Elephants, North County Times, reprinted from Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2012.
[7] Freedom of Information Act request answered by the Escondido Public Works Department, 2010.

Continuing, we have data from the 50 U.S. states that rank disease incidence as a function of percent of water districts that fluoridate. The data indicate yet again that water fluoridation does not influence teeth decay, but has significant associations with increased tooth fluorosis, mental retardation, cancer and cardiovascular deaths [1]. There was no correlation of increased incidence of Alzheimer’s disease with fluoridation, but cities were not separated between those that treat water also with aluminum from those that do not.

Please let me be clear.  It is possible that the elephants from the Wild Animal Park that were mentally degraded and euthanized at the Zoo this week may have presented with some form of dementia independent of aluminum and fluoride in their water. However, there is little doubt that the massive amounts of aluminum and fluoride, ingested together that causes uptake into brain, hastened their complete demise.  The abnormal tau proteins synthesized in brain in human dementia for unknown reasons have very high affinity for aluminum. Many Alzheimer’s victims have aluminum in large concentrations in brain at time of death.

The Alzheimer’s Association is currently confused and does not know the cause of the high incidence of Alzheimer’s in the U.S. or why San Diego leads the nation in this category of death per capita.  It is no longer assumed by this organization that aluminum is the causative agent. San Diego Water facilities indeed do not inject their own aluminum but report levels on water quality reports.  Metroplitan Water, Los Angeles has injected aluminum as a clarifying agent long before fluoride injections were begun that enhance aluminum assimilation, and this water is imported to North San Diego County. However, the city of San Diego and Escondido are fully culpable for contributing to the demise of these prize animals by providing no option other than water treated with fluoride that also contained aluminum. There is little doubt that aluminum uptake in brain enhanced the mental condition the animals suffered. Aluminum taken up into the brain where it does not belong cannot hide to exert zero effects on structure and function.  Numerous studies by Varner and coworkers over the last many decades [2] prove fluoride plus aluminum forms AlF3 complexes that are asslmilated into brain that cause microscopically observed brain degeneration during long term chronic consumption. The question is why is this seemingly not more dramatic in the human population than what seems to exist, but remember the human brain is of very high capacity (200 billion cells per brain). Further, lack of effect is merely an impression, not a fact, since Alzheimer’s now is the 6th leading cause of death in the U.S. [3] and in San Diego County is now astoundingly 3rd [4]!!  The time to death after Alzheimer’s first appears is relatively quick in many cases and there remains no cure.

It is time to halt the inane practice of injecting industrial synthetic fluoride compounds into human drinking water in an attempt to find a child’s cavity, when nonfluoridated Europe has experienced the same rate of decline in caries incidence that the U.S. has seen during this water ingested fluoride program [5]. Understand again that CA AB733 was based on a false assumption, that swallowed fluoride was assumed to decrease caries, when biochemical measurements prove it cannot–it is present from swallowing in the saliva at only 0.02 ppm [6], unable to affect teeth topically though CA dental officials with vested interests attempt to ignore this [7].  And again, no protocols are provided in CA AB733; it merelyy asserts basically to ‘go forth and fluoridate’, without details of any kind, as though it were some sort of higher proclamation, when it is a corrupt order that violates the Safe Drinking Water Act (which prohibits any Federal requirement for drugs, supplements, or any chemicals added other than to sanitize water), the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (requires FDA approval for any substance used as a putative treatment in humans) and the Water Pollution Control Act (section 101a). No State law can be legally binding that attempts to supercede these and other Federal laws covering public waterways that are Federal property. The Colorado River originates as far North as Western Wyoming (WindRiver Mountain Range), and CA aqueduct water originates as far North as creek drainage in Southern Oregon. The Oregon State legislature barred any State requirement for fluoride in Oregon waterways, to protect salmon from the known gross mental narcotic effect fluoride exerts that causes salmon run collapse.

As a medical research scientist and native San Diegan, I request that you order the Public Utilties Director, San Diego to stop titrating this illegal, unapproved, useless, harmful industrial substance lacking calcium into the water supply that is ingested by the innocent animals and people who reside here in our otherwise fair city.  My brother was offered the position of head computer systems operator by the San Diego Padres.  However, due to concerns over water fluoride (my brother has slight tooth fluorosis from a one-time Luride dose) he has chosen to remain in his home in Morgan Hill, CA. Morgan Hill is listed as a ‘fluoridated city’ but this is false. The water district chemists there stopped ordering drums of fluosilicic acid hazardous waste decades ago and refuse to inject synthetic fluorides into innocent people that, as a toxic calcium chelator, accumulates into bone permanently lifetime. Many people can remain rational about this, and I think you can also.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

References:
[1] Dr. Osmunson, presenter, International Fluoride Conference, Toronto,Canada, 2008
[2] Varner, Brain Research,1986 reviewed at www.fluoridealert.org and in
[3] North County Times, Jan 12, 2012
[4] Signon San Diego, 2010.
[5] Connett, et.al., The Case Against Fluoride, Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2010.
[6] National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, a Scientifc Review of EPA’s Standards, Washington, D.C., 2006.
[7] personal communication with Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, co-athor of reference [6].

 

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS

Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry

University of Toronto

Toronto, Ontario, M5G-1G6

E-mail: hardy.limeback@utoronto.ca

 

April, 2000

 

To whom it may concern:

Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water

Since April of 1999, I have publicly decried the addition of fluoride, especially hydrofluosilicic acid, to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. The following summarize my reasons.

New evidence for lack of effectiveness of fluoridation in modern times.

1. Modern studies (published in the 1980′s 1990′s) show dental decay rates are so low in North America that the effects of water fluoridation cannot be measured.

2. The major reasons for the general decline of tooth decay worldwide, both in non-fluoridated and fluoridated areas, is … improved diets, and overall improved general and dental health.

3. There is now a better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental decay. What little benefit fluoridated water may still provide is derived primarily through topical means (after the teeth erupt and come in contact with fluorides in the oral cavity).

 

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS

Head, Preventive Dentistry

 

There’s more to this statement here if you’d care to read all of the whole fascinating information provided, but that’s the crux of the matter.

 

Here are the references found in Dr. Limeback’s statement. These are not reviews, or opinions, but actual hard evidence, primary research, they call it. He took the time to read them all.

References:

Water fluoridation less effective in the late 1980′s and the 1990′s.

Water fluoridation cessation studies:

Attwood D, Blinkhorn AS. Dental health in school children 5 years after water fluoridation ceased in south-west. Scotland. Dent J. 1991 Feb;41(1):43-8.

Kobayashi S, Kawasaki K, Takagi O, Nakamura M, Fujii N, Shinzato M, Maki Y, Takaesu Y. Caries experience in subjects 18-22 years of age after 13 years’ discontinued water fluoridation in Okinawa. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1992 Apr;20(2):81-3.

Kalsbeek H, Kwant GW, Groeneveld A, Dirks OB, van Eck AA, Theuns HM. Caries experience of 15-year-old children in The Netherlands after discontinuation of water fluoridation. Caries Res. 1993;27(3):201-5.

Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. Caries frequency in permanent teeth before and after discontinuation of water fluoridation in Kuopio, Finland. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998 Aug;26(4):256-62.

Kunzel W, Fischer T. Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Res. 2000 Jan-Feb;34(1):20-5.

Burt BA, Keels MA, Heller KE. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. J Dent Res. 2000 Feb;79(2):761-9.

 

Comparison of fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities

Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:723-7; discussion 820-3.

Ismail AI, Shoveller J, Langille D, MacInnis WA, McNally M. Should the drinking water of Truro, Nova Scotia, be fluoridated? Water fluoridation in the 1990s. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1993 Jun;21(3):118-25.

Jackson RD, Kelly SA, Katz BP, Hull JR, Stookey GK. Dental fluorosis and caries prevalence in children residing in communities with different levels of fluoride in the water. J Public Health Dent. 1995 Spring;55(2):79-84.

Slade GD, Davies MJ, Spencer AJ, Stewart JF. Associations between exposure to fluoridated drinking water and dental caries experience among children in two Australian states. J Public Health Dent. 1995 Fall;55(4):218-28.

Kumar JV, Swango PA, Lininger LL, Leske GS, Green EL, Haley VB. Changes in dental fluorosis and dental caries in Newburgh and Kingston, New York. Am J Public Health. 1998 Dec;88(12):1866-70.

Angelillo IF, Torre I, Nobile CG, Villari P. Caries and fluorosis prevalence in communities with different concentrations of fluoride in the water. Caries Res. 1999;33(2):114-22.

 

Decline of caries is not all due to fluoride

Bratthall D, Hansel Petersson G, Sundberg H. (1996) Reasons for the caries decline. What do the experts believe? Euro J Oral Sci 104:416-422

de Liefde B. The decline of caries in New Zealand over the past 40 years. N Z Dent J. 1998 Sep;94(417):109-13.

Birkeland JM, Haugejorden O, Ramm Von Der Fehr F. Some factors associated with the caries decline among norwegian children and adolescents: age-specific and cohort analyses. Caries Res. 2000 Mar-Apr;34(2):109-16.

Krasse B. From the art of filling teeth to the science of dental caries prevention: a personal review. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(5 Spec No):271-7.

 

Dental fluorosis is now an epidemic

Leverett D. Prevalence of dental fluorosis in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities—a preliminary investigation. J Public Health Dent. 1986 Fall;46(4):184-7.

Pendrys DG, Stamm JW. Relationship of total fluoride intake to beneficial effects and enamel fluorosis. J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:529-38; discussion 556-7.

Szpunar SM, Burt BA. Evaluation of appropriate use of dietary fluoride supplements in the US. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1992 Jun;20(3):148-54.

Riordan PJ. Perceptions of dental fluorosis. J Dent Res. 1993 Sep;72(9):1268-74.

Clark DC. Appropriate use of fluorides in the 1990′s. J Can Dent Assoc. 1993 Mar;59(3):272-9.

Clark DC. Trends in prevalence of dental fluorosis in North America. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994 Jun;22(3):148-52.

Lalumandier JA, Rozier RG. The prevalence and risk factors of fluorosis among patients in a pediatric dental practice. Pediatr Dent. 1995 Jan-Feb;17(1):19-25.

Pendrys DG, Katz RV, Morse DE. Risk factors for enamel fluorosis in a nonfluoridated population. Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Apr 15;143(8):808-15.

Limeback H, Ismail A, Banting D, DenBesten P, Featherstone J, Riordan PJ. Canadian Consensus Conference on the appropriate use of fluoride supplements for the prevention of dental caries in children. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998 Oct;64(9):636-9.

Kumar JV, Swango PA. Fluoride exposure and dental fluorosis in Newburgh and Kingston, New York: policy implications. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999 Jun;27(3):171-80.

Rozier RG. The prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis in North American children. J Public Health Dent. 1999 Fall;59(4):239-46.

 

Fluoride ingestion delays tooth eruption and may simply delay tooth decay

Human studies:

Kunzel VW. [Cross-sectional comparison of the median eruption time for permanent teeth in children from fluoride poor and optimally fluoridated areas]. Stomatol DDR. 1976 May;5:310-21.

Virtanen JI, Bloigu RS, Larmas MA. Timing of eruption of permanent teeth: standard Finnish patient documents. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994 Oct;22(5 Pt 1):286-8.

Campagna L, Tsamtsouris A, Kavadia K. Fluoridated drinking water and maturation of permanent teeth at age 12. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1995 Spring;19(3):225-8.

Nadler GL: Earlier dental maturation: fact or fiction? Angle Orthod 1998 Dec;68(6):535-8

Animal studies:

Krook L, Maylin GA, Lillie JH, Wallace RS. Dental fluorosis in cattle. Cornell Vet. 1983 Oct;73(4):340-62.

Smith CE, Nanci A, Denbesten PK. Effects of chronic fluoride exposure on morphometric parameters defining the stages of amelogenesis and ameloblast modulation in rat incisors. Anat Rec. 1993 Oct;237(2):243-58.

 

The anti-caries benefit from swallowed fluoride is miniscule compared to the post-eruptive topical effects.

Heifetz SB, Proskin HM. Serendipitous results of a pilot study: precaution indicated. J Clin Dent. 1995;6(1):117-9.

Burt, B.A. (1994). Letter. Fluoride, 27, 180-181.

Carlos, J.P. (1983). Comments on Fluoride. J.Pedodontics. Winter, 135-136.

Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. Rational use of fluorides in caries prevention. A concept based on possible cariostatic mechanisms Acta Odontol Scand.1981;39(4):241-9.

Levine, R.S., (1976). The action of fluoride in caries prevention: a review of current concepts. Brit. Dent. J. 140, 9-14.

Martens LC, Verbeeck RM. [Mechanism of action of fluorides in local/topical application]. Rev Belge Med Dent. 1998;53(1):295-308.

Featherstone JD. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;27(1):31-40.

Limeback H. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;27(1):62-71.

 

Fluoridated water is associated with an increase risk for bone fracture

Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Miles TP, Brody JA, Stiers W, Rimm AA. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture. US white women aged 65 years and older. JAMA. 1990 Jul 25;264(4):500-2.

Sowers MF, Clark MK, Jannausch ML, Wallace RB. A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with fluoride exposure. Am J Epidemiol. 1991 Apr 1;133(7):649-60.

Cooper C, Wickham CA, Barker DJ, Jacobsen SJ. Water fluoridation and hip fracture. JAMA. 1991 Jul 24-31;266(4):513-4.

Danielson C, Lyon JL, Egger M, Goodenough GK. Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. JAMA. 1992 Aug 12;268(6):746-8.

Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Cooper C, Lockwood SA. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older. A national ecologic study. Ann Epidemiol. 1992 Sep;2(5):617-26

Jacqmin-Gadda H, Commenges D, Dartigues JF. Fluorine concentration in drinking water and fractures in the elderly. JAMA. 1995 Mar 8;273(10):775-6.

Hillier S, Inskip H, Coggon D, Cooper C. (1996) Water fluoridation and osteoporotic fracture. Community Dent Health Suppl 2:63-8

Karagas MR, Baron JA, Barrett JA, Jacobsen SJ. Patterns of fracture among the United States elderly: geographic and fluoride effects. Ann Epidemiol. 1996 May;6(3):209-16.

Papadimitropoulos EA, Coyte PC, Josse RG, Greenwood CE. Current and projected rates of hip fracture in Canada. CMAJ. 1997 Nov 15;157(10):1357-63.

Feskanich D, Owusu W, Hunter DJ, Willett W, Ascherio A, Spiegelman D, Morris S, Spate VL, Colditz G. Use of toenail fluoride levels as an indicator for the risk of hip and forearm fractures in women. Epidemiology. 1998 Jul;9(4):412-6.

Allolio B, Lehmann R. Drinking water fluoridation and Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 1999;107(1):12-20.

Kurttio P, Gustavsson N, Vartiainen T, Pekkanen J. Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: a cohort analysis in Finland. Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Oct 15;150(8):817-24.

Hillier S, Cooper C, Kellingray S, Russell G, Hughes H, Coggon D. Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case-control study. Lancet. 2000 Jan 22;355(9200):265-9.

 

Fluorosilicates, lead, arsenic, radium and other harmful contaminants in our fluoridated water are toxic

Denzinger HF, Konig HJ, and Kruger GE 1979 No. 103 sept/Oct issue of ‘Phosphorus and Potassium’

Lyman GH, Lyman CG, Johnson W. Association of leukemia with radium groundwater contamination. JAMA. 1985 Aug 2;254(5):621-6.

Finkelstein MM. Radium in drinking water and the risk of death from bone cancer among Ontario youths. CMAJ. 1994 Sep 1;151(5):565-71.

Moss ME, Kanarek MS, Anderson HA, Hanrahan LP, Remington PL. Osteosarcoma, seasonality, and environmental factors in Wisconsin, 1979-1989. Arch Environ Health. 1995 May-Jun;50(3):235-41.

Maki-Paakkanen J, Kurttio P, Paldy A, Pekkanen J. Association between the clastogenic effect in peripheral lymphocytes and human exposure to arsenic through drinking water. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1998;32(4):301-13.

Masters RD, Coplan M. Water treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity. Intern J of Environ Studies 1999 56:435-449

Moss ME, Lanphear BP, Auinger P. Association of dental caries and blood lead levels. JAMA. 1999 Jun 23-30;281(24):2294-8.

Kurttio P, Pukkala E, Kahelin H, Auvinen A, Pekkanen J. Arsenic concentrations in well water and risk of bladder and kidney cancer in Finland. Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Sep;107(9):705-10.

Finkelstein MM. Silica, silicosis, and lung cancer: a risk assessment. Am J Ind Med. 2000 Jul;38(1):8-18.

Saffiotti U, Ahmed N. Neoplastic transformation by quartz in the BALB/3T3/A31-1-1 cell line and the effects of associated minerals. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen. 1995 15(6):339-56.

 

Studies reporting a link between fluoride and cancer

- some show a trend for increased risk of bone cancer in young males

Zeiger E, Shelby MD, Witt KL. Genetic toxicity of fluoride. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1993;21(4):309-18.

Cohn, P.D. (1992). “An Epidemiologic Report on Drinking Water and Fluoridation”. New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, NJ.

Bucher JR, Hejtmancik MR, Toft JD 2d, Persing RL, Eustis SL, Haseman JK. Results and conclusions of the National Toxicology Program’s rodent carcinogenicity studies with sodium fluoride. Int J Cancer. 1991 Jul 9;48(5):733-7.

Hoover RN “Fluoridation of Drinking Water and Subsequent Cancer Incidence and Mortality” In Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. US Public Health Service, pp E1-E51.

Tohyama E. Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan. J Epidemiol. 1996 Dec;6(4):184-91.

Lee JR. Fluoridation and Bone Cancer. Fluoride 1993;26(2):79-82.

Yiamouyiannis JA. Fluoridation and cancer: The biology and epidemiology of bone and oral cancer related to fluoridation. Fluoride 1993;26(2):83-96.

Galanti MR, Sparen P, Karlsson A, Grimelius L, Ekbom A. Is residence in areas of endemic goiter a risk factor for thyroid cancer? Int J Cancer. 1995 May 29;61(5):615-21.

Grandjean P, Olsen JH, Jensen OM, Juel K. Cancer incidence and mortality in workers exposed to fluoride. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992 Dec 16;84(24):1903-9.

Tsutsui T, Ide K, Maizumi H. Induction of unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human oral keratinocytes by sodium fluoride. Mutat Res. 1984 May;140(1):43-8

Aardema MJ, Gibson DP, LeBoeuf RA. Sodium fluoride-induced chromosome aberrations in different stages of the cell cycle: a proposed mechanism. Mutat Res. 1989 Jun;223(2):191-203.

Scott D, Roberts SA. Extrapolation from in vitro tests to human risk: experience with sodium fluoride clastogenicity. Mutat Res. 1987 Sep;189(1):47-58

 

Publications arguing against the link between fluoride and cancer. Why?

-failure to recognize in most cases that hydrofluosilicic acid (and its radium and arsenic contaminants), not pure sodium fluoride, was used to fluoridate water

-the increase in risk from 1 ppm fluoridated water for all cancers is low, for osteosarcomas, it is extremely low, but it should still be detectable with sufficient sample sizes

Chilvers C. Cancer mortality and fluoridation of water supplies in 35 USA cities. Int J Epidemiol 1983;12(4):397-404.

Shupe JL, Bruner RH, Seymour JL, Alden CL. The pathology of chronic bovine fluorosis: a review. Toxicol Pathol. 1992;20(2):274-85; discussion 285-8.

Freni SC, Gaylor DW. International trends in the incidence of bone cancer are not related to drinking water fluoridation. Cancer 1992;70(3):611-618.

Clemmesen J. Alleged association between artificial fluoridation of water supplies and cancer: review. Bull. WHO 1983;61(5):871-883.

Cook-Mozaffari P, Doll R. Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer Mortality 2. Mortality Trends After Fluoridation. J Epidemiol Community Health 1981;35(4):233-238.

Doll R, Kinlen L. Fluoridation of water and cancer mortality in the U.S.A. Lancet 1977;1(Jun):1300-1302.

Griffith GW. Fluoridation and Cancer Mortality in Anglesey Wales Uk. J Epidemiol Community Health 1985;39(3):224-226.

Kinlen L, Doll R. Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer Mortality 3. a Reexamination of Mortality in Cities in the Usa. J Epidemiol Community Health 1981;35(4):239-244.

Hoover RN, McKay FW, Fraumeni JFJ. Fluoridated drinking water and the occurrence of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1976;57(4):757-768.

Walker AR, Cleaton-Jones PE, Richardson BD. Fluoridation and Cancer. S Afr Med J 1981;60(23):878-879.

Thomson WM. Dental health: water fluoridation, hip fracture, osteosarcoma–recent evidence. N. Z. Pharm. 1997;17(Nov):40-42.

Jackson RD, Kelly SA, Noblitt TW, Zhang W, Wilson ME, Dunipace AJ, Li Y,

Katz BP, Brizendine EJ, Stookey GK. Lack of effect of long-term fluoride ingestion on blood chemistry and frequency of sister chromatid exchange in human lymphocytes. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1997;29(3):265-71.

 

Fluoride is neurotoxic

Hu YH, Wu SS. Fluoride in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with fluorosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988 Dec;51(12):1591-3.

Holland, R.I. Fluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 1979 3:701-705

Jope RS. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. J. Neurochem. 1988 51:1731-1736.

Kay AR, Miles R, Wong RKS. Intracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. J. Neurosci. 1986 6: 2915-2920.

Varner JA, Jensen KF Isaacson RL. Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1997 825: 152-166.

Mullenix PJ, Denbesten PK, Schunior A, Kernan WJ. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995 Mar-Apr;17(2):169-77.

Varner JA, Jensen KF, Horvath W, Isaacson RL. Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Res. 1998 Feb 16;784(1-2):284-98.

Varner JA, Horvath WJ, Huie CW, Naslund HR, Isaacson RL. Chronic aluminum fluoride administration. I. Behavioral observations. Behav Neural Biol. 1994 May;61(3):233-41.

Zhao LB, Liang GH, Zhang DN, Wu XR. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 1996 29:190-192.

Li, XS, Zhi JL, RO. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 1995 28(4):189-192.

Luke JA. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. CariesResearch 1994 28:204.

Bahavior not affected by fluoride?

Morgan L, Allred E, Tavares M, Bellinger D, Needleman H. Investigation of the possible associations between fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and childhood behavior problems. Pediatr Dent. 1998 Jul-Aug;20(4):244-52

 

Fluoride affects reproduction

Dominguez L, Diaz A, Fornes MW, Mayorga LS. Reagents that activate GTP-binding proteins trigger the acrosome reaction in human spermatozoa. Int J Androl. 1995 Aug;18(4):203-7.

Hoffman DJ, Pattee OH, Wiemeyer SN. Effects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Toxicol. Lett. 1985 26: 19-24.

Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Ameliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes.Vet. 1988 78 75-91.

Narayana MV, Chinoy NJ Reversible effects of sodium fluoride ingestion on spermatozoa of the rat Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1994 Nov-Dec;39(6):337-46

Messer HH, Armstrong WD, Singer L. Fertility impairment in mice on a low fluoride intake. Science. 1972 Sep 8;177(52):893-4

Haesungcharern A, Chulavatnatol M. Inhibitors of adenylate cyclase from ejaculated human spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil. 1978 May;53(1):59-61

Susheela AK, Jethanandani P. Circulating testosterone levels in skeletal fluorosis patients. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1996;34(2):183-9.

Kumar A, Susheela AK. Effects of chronic fluoride toxicity on the morphology of ductus epididymis and the maturation of spermatozoa of rabbit. Int J Exp Pathol. 1995 Feb;76(1):1-11.

Nicol CJ, Zielenski J, Tsui LC, Wells PG. An embryoprotective role for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase in developmental oxidative stress and chemical teratogenesis. FASEB J. 2000 Jan;14(1):111-27.

 

No fluoride effect on reproduction

Merkley JW, Sexton TJ Reproductive performance of White Leghorns provided fluoride Poult Sci 1982 Jan;61(1):52-6

Fluoride can affect thyroid hormones and, therefore, many other organs

Susa M. “Heterotrimeric G proteins as fluoride targets in bone (Review). Int J Mol Med 3(2):115-126 (1999)

Caverzasio J, Palmer G, Suzuki A, Bonjour JP. Mechanism of the mitogenic effect of fluoride on osteoblast-like cells: evidences for a G protein-dependent tyrosine phosphorylation process. J Bone Miner Res. 1997 Dec;12(12):1975-83.

Susa M, Standke GJ, Jeschke M, Rohner D. Fluoroaluminate induces pertussis toxin-sensitive protein phosphorylation: differences in MC3T3-E1 osteoblastic and NIH3T3 fibroblastic cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1997 Jun 27;235(3):680-4.

Galletti PM, Joyet G – “Effect of fluoride on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism” J Clin Endocrinol 18:1102-1110 (1958)

Gedalia I, Brand N. The relationship of fluoride and iodine in drinking water in the occurrence of goiter. Arch Int Pharmacodyn 1963;142:312-5.

Gorlitzer von Mundy. Einfluss von Fluor und Jod auf den Stoffwechsel, insbesondere auf die Schilddrüss. Münch Med Wochenschrift 105:234-247 (1963)

Litzka G – “Die experimentellen Grundlagen der Behandlung des M. Basedow und der Hyperthyreose mittels Fluortyrosin” Dtsch Med Wochenschr 63:1037-1040 (1937)

Gordonoff T. – Fluor und die Schilddrüse, Toxikology des Fluors Basel/Stuttgart, pp.111-123 (1964)

May W. Antagonismus zwischen Jod und Fluor im Organismus. Klin Wochenschr 14:790-792 (1935)

May W. Behandlung der Hypothyreosen einschließlich des schweren genuinenMorbus Basedow mit Fluor” Klin Wochenschr 16:562-564 (1937)

Haddow JE, Palomaki GE, Allan WC, et al. -”Maternal thyroid deficiency during pregnancy and subsequent neuropsychological development of the child.” N Engl J Med 341:549-55 (1999)]

Eckerlin, R.H.,Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986). Milk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed.

Balabolkin MI, Mikhailets ND, Lobovskaia RN, Chernousova NV. [The interrelationship of the thyroid and immune statuses of workers with long-term fluorine exposure]. Ter Arkh. 1995;67(1):41-2.

Krishnamachari KA Skeletal fluorosis in humans: a review of recent progress in the understanding of the disease. Prog Food Nutr Sci 1986;10(3-4):279-314

Tezelman S, Shaver JK, Grossman RF, Liang W, Siperstein AE, Duh QY, Clark OH. Desensitization of adenylate cyclase in Chinese hamster ovary cells transfected with human thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor. Endocrinology. 1994 Mar;134(3):1561-9.

 

Fluoride enters the placenta and may cause birth defects

Malhotra A, Tewari A, Chawla HS, Gauba K, Dhall K. Placental transfer of fluoride in pregnant women consuming optimum fluoride in drinking water. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 1993 Mar;11(1):1-3

Armstrong WD, Singer L, Makowski EL. Placental transfer of fluoride and calcium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1970 Jun 1;107(3):432-4.

Erickson JD. Fluoridation and Down Syndrome. J Dental Res 58a 1979;228.

Erickson JD. Down Syndrome, Water Fluoridation, and Maternal Age. Teratology 1980;21(177-180).

Gupta SK, Gupta RC, Seth AK, Chaturvedi CS. Increased incidence of spina bifida occulta in fluorosis prone areas. Acta Paediatr Jpn. 1995 Aug;37(4):503-6.

 

Fluoride may affect the immune system

Loftenius A, Andersson B, Butler J, Ekstrand J. Fluoride augments the mitogenic and antigenic response of human blood lymphocytes in vitro. Caries Res. 1999;33(2):148-55.

Gutierrez J, Liebana J, Ruiz M, Castillo A, Gomez JL. Action of sodium fluoride on phagocytosis by systemic polymorphonuclear leucocytes. J Dent. 1994 Oct;22(5):279-82.

Sutton PR. Is the ingestion of fluoride an immunosuppressive practice? Med Hypotheses. 1991 May;35(1):1-3.

Spittle B. Allergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Fluoride 1993 26: 267-273.

Gabler WL, Mugrditchian M, Creamer HR, Bullock WW. Effect of fluoride on movement of concanavalin A-acceptor molecules of human neutrophils. Inflammation. 1989 Jun;13(3):317-28.

Gabler WL, Creamer HR, Bullock WW. Fluoride activation of neutrophils: similarities to formylmethionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine. Inflammation. 1989 Feb;13(1):47-58.

Gabler WL, Hunter N. Inhibition of human neutrophil phagocytosis and intracellular killing of yeast cells by fluoride. Arch Oral Biol. 1987;32(5):363-6

Gomez-Ubric JL, Liebana J, Gutierrez J, Castillo A. In vitro immune modulation of polymorphonuclear leukocyte adhesiveness by sodium fluoride. Eur J Clin Invest. 1992 Oct;22(10):659-61

Lewis A, Wilson CW. Fluoride hypersensitivity in mains tap water demonstrated by skin potential changes in guinea-pigs. Med Hypotheses. 1985 Apr;16(4):397-402

Hirano S, Ando M, Kanno S. Inflammatory responses of rat alveolar macrophages following exposure to fluoride. Arch Toxicol. 1999 Aug;73(6):310-5.

O’Shea JJ, Urdahl KB, Luong HT, Chused TM, Samelson LE, Klausner RD. Aluminum fluoride induces phosphatidylinositol turnover, elevation of cytoplasmic free calcium, and phosphorylation of the T cell antigen receptor in murine T cells. J Immunol. 1987 Nov 15;139(10):3463-9

Gutierrez J, Liebana J, Ruiz M, Castillo A, Gomez JL. Action of sodium fluoride on phagocytosis by systemic polymorphonuclear leucocytes. J Dent. 1994 Oct;22(5):279-82.