Lead, Arsenic, Hydrogen Fluoride, Silicofluoride in Drinking Water

Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego)
Palomar Community College
1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 9206
E-mail: richsauerheb@hotmail.com   Phone: 760-402-1173

March 4, 2012

Dear American Heart Association,

I enjoy helping the AHA distribute information you provide for neighbors. As a medical reserach scientist of many decades, with expertise in cardiovascular science from the University of CA San Diego School of Medicine, I am now writing to help you as well.  Following is a portion of a letter to the FDA describing the fact that industrial fluoride in public water supplies accumulates to 0.21 ppm fluoride ion in the bloodstream, and that fluoride as a calcium chelator  from blood incorporates into atherosclerotic plaque in cardiovascaule disease patients, as published last month by the Veterans Administration HealthCare Center, Los Angeles  (http://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Fulltext/2012/01000/Association_of_vascular_fluoride_uptake_with.3.aspx ).

The softer the water supply with less endogenous calcium, the higher the blood fluoride level is for continuous longterm consumption lifetime. Acute heart block has occurred in people in Hooper Bay, Alaska during an industrial fluoride overfeed in their public water supply.  In research animals, longterm consumption of sub-acute fluoride eventually causes heart muscle weakening due to fluoride incorporation into calcium-rich tissue. Finally, the 140 million Americans who now consume fluoridated water, at only 1 ppm, accumulate fluoride permanently into bone to thousands of mg/kg, which perturbs calcium homeostasis. The data we now have that shows an increased % of cardiovascular deaths according to the % of water systems that are fluoridated in the 50 U.S. states is not surprising (see references on fluoride consumption causing heart muscle weakening in the human being below).

I am asking the American Heart Association to please join us in our effort to halt injections of industrial fluosilicic acid into U.S. public human drinking water. If you also could be so kind as to write in support of this effort to the FDA at the address in the letter below, we would most appreciate it.  Heart disease remains America’s leading killer and there is no chance of this being reversed when Americans are treated with industrial fluoride as though it were an FDA-approved drug, when it has never been FDa approved for ingestion.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

for San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water, Washington Action for Safe Water, Fluoride Class Action

References:

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

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

November 21, 2001

Dear Reviewers,

This brief letter provides additional information, not forwarded earlier, in support of FDA petition 2007P-0346.

The FDA has been indirectly involved in water fluoridation for many years, by virtue of its regulation of the prescription fluoride drug Luride, and requirements regarding its labeling.

The FDA analyzed water fluoride conditions thoroughly with regards to use of the prescription drug Luride, and included their findings in labeling and dosage instructions required for this prescription drug. The Physician’s Desk Reference, America’s first and only compendium of official FDA-approved prescription drug labeling, lists Luride (sodium fluoride) as a still-legal prescription drug. The specific dosage instructions, carefully analyzed, approved and required by the FDA, include the following statement:

Fluoride oral supplements are contra-indicated when drinking water is above 0.7 ppm fluoride. (Physician’s Desk Reference, p. 838, 48^th edition, Medical Economics Data Production Company, Montvale, NJ, 1994).

In spite of recommendations issued January, 2011 from the U.S. Health and Human Services not to exceed 0.7 ppm, San Diego city water is mostly treated to 0.8 ppm fluoride and Los Angeles public water is titrated to 1.0 ppm of the free fluoride ion. Water districts which inject synthetic fluoride compounds for human ingestion are in violation of FDA regulations, by either

1)       dispensing a non-FDA approved drug (fluosilicic acid), or

2)       in some cities dispensing an FDA-approved prescription drug (sodium fluoride) without a prescription, and

3)       by not providing necessary FDA dosage information to consumers (i.e. as listed in the PDR above). FDA existing dosage instructions are being ignored.

Fluosilicic acid is not an FDA approved drug by either prescription or over the counter and is not listed in the PDR. Its dispensation for oral ingestion is a violation of the FD&C Act that requires, that any substance used as a drug to treat disease requires a new drug application and FDA approval.

We are asking for a ban on fluosilicic acid in public water supplies. However, even before the FDA issues such a ban it should issue an advisory statement such as the following:

The FDA advises those who which to consume fluoride orally to visit their physicians, consult with them regarding the proper dosage, the duration of dosage, and the appropriateness of consuming it in the form of Luride, a drug which the FDA has approved, although only with a physician’s prescription.

Likewise, the FDA should issue the following advisory to water districts which fluoridate drinking water:

Water districts which fluoridate should advise physicians not to prescribe Luride to those who live within the boundaries of their water district.

If you require the CFR regulations again that specifically apply to the violations listed above, I will be most happy to forward them.

Sincerely,

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Sodium and Total Dissolved Solids Increase in Water

After Fluoridation

Metropolitan Water District of San Diego

by Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
University of CA, San Diego
Currently Palomar College, San Marcos

In 2007 the Metropolitan Water District of San Diego began injecting industrial grade sodium fluorosilicate into drinking water, allegedly to treat tooth decay. Both sodium and total dissolved solids have steadily increased since that time. The lines in the charts above are computed moving averages.

For every ton of industrial waste fluosilicic acid added to drinking water, another half ton of sodium hydroxide (Drano) must be added to maintain pH at 8.1. Two sodium ions are required to neutralize two H⁺ ions from H₂SiF₆.

San Diego gets its water from the Colorado River. Pristine drinking water is low in sodium with levels typically under 10 ppm. The Colorado has natural levels higher than that, but salt levels spiked when The EPA initiated its salt abatement program, which is wrongly named because what it does is allow more salt to be dumped into the Colorado. The EPA allows scores of industries along the Colorado to release one ton of salt a day into the river. Shell Oil is allowed to release 2,000 tons per day from just one of its facilities on the Colorado. This is a particularly stupid policy: Salty water could be released into holding ponds and allowed to evaporate. No significant amount of salt should be allowed deposited into the Colorado.

Fluoridation brings with it even more sodium. Sodium content has risen from below 80 ppm to above 90 ppm since fluoridation began. This additional salt is affecting crop yields and vegetable and fruit quality. For example, avocado production in Southern California is down due to rising sodium levels (North County Times, 2010). When salt reaches around 116 ppm, water is no longer usable to irrigate crops or even grass. Compare ocean water in which the salt level is around 35,000 ppm. Crops need fresh water containing low levels of salt.

Now we are foolishly adding sodium in the form of sodium hydroxide, in order to counter the acidity of the silicofluorides we foolishly add to fight tooth decay. The best research shows fluoride does not protect teeth and instead causes fluorosis of teeth and bones and a host of other problems with organs and systems throughout the body.

The Metropolitan Water District Los Angeles encountered the industrial salt injection problem in 2007, when it started adding 0.1 tons of sodium daily at Lake Skinner alone in the form of sodium hydroxide.

Total dissolved solids (TDS) has also increased since San Diego began fluoridation. The EPA secondary standard for TDS is 500 ppm, and San Diego is exceeding that.

Salinity is a huge problem for agriculture and for human health. Ironically, the EPA has not developed standards for sodium since fresh water has historically been low in sodium. Until recently it has not been a problem. The sodium level in blood is 3,000 ppm but is typically 0-10 ppm in pristine fresh drinking water.

The Vallecitos Water District has raised no objections or questions to MWD on the injections and has ignored public testimony since 2006 opposing the ingestion of the non-FDA-approved fluoride water drug.

Corporate propaganda has turned “fluoride” into a good word. However, the silicofluoride form of fluoride used brings with it lead, arsenic, other heavy metals, and now salt. This is just one of many reasons why fluoridation of drinking water is an unwise policy. If people want to ingest fluoride, they need only swallow some of their toothpaste or mouthwash.

Scientifically yours,

http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/Sauerheber-on-Sodium-6-4-11.pdf