It is Fluoride, Jim, but not as we know it

So... industrial accidents caused by DuPont and its fluoride derived industries. See http://assets.usw.org/resources/hse/resources/Walking-the-Talk-Duponts-Untold-Safety-Failures.pdf    

As you well know, I am continually opposed to dumping hydrofluorosilicic acid into our drinking water, as this by-product of the phosphate fertiliser industry is not only highly corrosive and toxic, but is un-regulated by any government department & has never been licenced for use as medication, which is what it is being used for when they make us drink it.

Today I have another fluoride culprit, which I only found out about today, but some fast research has shown that for the past 6 years the American EPA has been at odds with DuPont over their use of, and hiding the negative effects of, another fluoride derivative, namely Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), commonly used in Teflon and many household coatings... have YOU checked your cookware lately?

Articles courtesy of  processingmagazine.com 

September 9th, 2012 -

Common chemical linked to heart disease, researchers find

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a common industrial chemical used in the manufacture of many household products, may be associated with higher risks of cardiovascular disease, according to a study by researchers at the West Virginia University School of Public Health.
PFOA, also known as C8, is a manmade, perfluorinated carboxylic acid and fluorosurfactant. One of its main industrial applications is as a surfactant in the emulsion polymerization of fluoropolymers. It has been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the U.S. population.
WVU researchers examined 1,216 subjects from the 1999-2003 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, a major program of the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The team found that increased PFOA levels were positively associated with cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease, independent of traditional risk factors, such as age, sex and race/ethnicity.
“These two factors – increased PFOA levels and cardiovascular disease – are co-existing together for some reason,” said Dr. Anoop Shankar, the lead author of the study. “To determine the cause and effect, we would have to do follow-up studies over time, which we are, in fact, doing. At this point, we cannot say that one caused the other.”
In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency worked with eight major companies in the industry to launch the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program, in which companies committed to reduce global facility emissions and product content of PFOA and related chemicals by 95% by 2010, and to work toward eliminating emissions and product content by 2015.

December 2010 -

3M, DuPont Settle Patent Fight Over Coating Process for Teflon

3M Co. and DuPont Co. settled their patent dispute over a process of making protective coatings including Teflon that are free of a chemical suspected of causing cancer, according to Bloomberg. The companies submitted a filing in federal court in Minneapolis seeking dismissal of the U.S. suit, filed in March. DuPont and 3M were among companies that agreed to eliminate perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, from products including Teflon by 2015 amid government and consumer concern that the chemical may harm people. DuPont has said PFOA has mostly been removed from products introduced since 2007, while 3M said it completed the phase-out of last year. 3M said it filed the complaint after DuPont rejected offers to license the patent, which was issued in April 2008 and covers a way to make aqueous Teflon coatings that are effectively free of PFOA. The agreement to eliminate PFOA was made after an Environmental Protection Agency scientific advisory panel said PFOA is a likely human carcinogen, based on animal studies.
 
January 2006 -

Bottled water in Ohio test positive for DuPont chemical

The Associated Press reports that bottled water provided to about 1,000 southeast Ohio residents whose tap water contained a chemical used by DuPont Company to make Teflon has tested positive for trace amounts of the same substance, the company providing the water said last Thursday. Marietta-based Crystal Spring Water, which has been supplying the water to residents since September, confirmed the presence of perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts in tests after a learning of a similar finding by the local water association, it said. The company's tests on the bottled water showed C8 levels at 13 to 17 parts per trillion. The well supply that provides the residents' tap water contained 3,500 parts per trillion to 7,200 parts per trillion. The company is one of three hired by DuPont, the third-largest chemical company in the U.S., to provide water to local residents until it installs filters to remove the chemical at well-water treatment plants near its Parkersburg, West Virginia facility as part of the settlement of a 2001 class action lawsuit against it. Crystal Spring is giving the 1,000 people treated water and is installing a filter to remove the chemical, known as PFOA or C-8, from the spring it uses across the Ohio River in West Virginia, owner Gary Matheny said. It is also sending 2,000 letters to customers to tell them about plans to install the filter. The chemical, used in DuPont products from nonstick cookware coating to computer chips, is a "likely" carcinogenic, according to a draft report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency science panel. Ohio and West Virginia residents who sued DuPont in 2001 claimed the company intentionally withheld and misrepresented information about the human health threat posed by the chemical. DuPont, which says C8 poses no human health threat, agreed to pay more than $107 million to settle the lawsuit with the residents over the chemical from the West Virginia plant. 

December 2005 -

EPA, DuPont in settlement over chemical

According to the Associated Press, federal regulators have reached an agreement with DuPont to settle allegations the company hid information about the dangers of a toxic chemical known as C8 used in the manufacture of Teflon. Lawyers for DuPont and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told an administrative law judge that they had reached a final agreement, but needed more time to put together the paperwork. The EPA alleged that DuPont for 20 years covered up important information about C8's health effects and about the pollution of water supplies near the company's Washington Works plant. Under federal law, DuPont could face civil fines of more than $300 million for not reporting information that showed C8 posed "substantial risk of injury to health or the environment." The company has set aside $15 million to cover the costs of the lawsuit, according to corporate disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. DuPont also faces a federal criminal investigation of its actions concerning C8 pollution, the company has told shareholders. Since May, DuPont and the EPA repeatedly have said they were close to a settlement in the civil case, but had one item left to resolve. They would not identify that item. DuPont has maintained that C8, also known as perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, has no negative health effects. In February, DuPont settled a class-action lawsuit for $107.6 million brought by Ohio and West Virginia residents in 2001, alleging the Wilmington, Del.-based company intentionally withheld and misrepresented information concerning the nature and extent of the human health threat posed by C8.

More Scientific Evidence of Fluoride links to Cancer

The latest survey of American cities comparing the ten MOST fluoridated against the ten LEAST fluoridated cities in the USA shows clearly that while cancer rates climb a steep upward trajectory in the fluoridated cities, in the non-fluoridated cities it has levelled off 30 years ago. Pure and simple proof that the hydrofluorosilicic acid that they "call" fluoride has even worse effects than causing Alzheimers , brittle bones and fluorosis on teeth. Watch the youtube video of an interview with the scientist running the analysis here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qq_oQoTdnYc

Minister John Gormley T.D., Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, OPPOSES Fluoridation!

Almost 2 and a half years after the now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley, the Chair of the Oireachtas Health and Children Committee, wrote this intelligent Report calling for the immediate stop to water fluoridation on numerous grounds, we are STILL drinking toxic waste with no proven benefits. Why? Now that he is a Minister in Government why has he not moved to halt this criminal poisoning of a nation? Where is the spine? Has it, like the skeletal and dental structures of the fluoride-imbibing public, become brittle and weakened, too?
Introductory Note
Extracted from: Irish Times, Thursday 15th March 2007:
«The publication of a report on fluoridation to the Oireachtas Health and Children Committee written by Green Party Dublin South East TD, John Gormley, is expected to be strongly opposed by some other committee members in the coming weeks.

Rejecting the Green's opposition to fluoridation, the Fianna Fáil TD, Jimmy Devins, vice-chair of the committee, said water fluoridation "is in the interests of public health and should not be discontinued. ...All the evidence available has indicated to us that water fluoridation is in the interests of public health. It prevents dental caries and has no negative side effects aside from a slight staining of teeth in a small number of cases which can be easily treatable."

Mr Devins said he would oppose Mr Gormley's report getting the official sanction of the committee.»
Here is the report which was suppressed by certain committee members.

This report was never put to the vote.
Incidentally, Mr Devins' statement is completely untrue in every aspect.
”All the evidence” can be neatly summed up by the York Report of 2000&2003 which analysed all the hundreds of reports on fluoridation and found “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor. “ - http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
“ has no negative side effects aside from a slight staining of teeth” is also completely untrue. There are over 500 reports and scientific papers available which point to fluoride's negative effects on the thyroid, heart, pilial gland, bone density and soft tissue and its effects causing bone cancers, Alzheimers Disease and lowered IQ levels, among other negatives. Check: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/ for a full overview.
Furthermore, “ slight staining of teeth in a small number of cases which can be easily treatable” - over 40% of Irish children now suffer from dental, and ergo skeletal fluorosis, in the more severe cases this can involve cosmetic processes costing thousands of euro.
To continually dose a population for 50+ years with a substance that contains mercury, lead, arsenic , massive amounts of phosphate and sulphur, and indeed 30+ other chemicals in it WITHOUT A HEALTH CHECK EVER HAVING BEEN MADE...anywhere in the world, is asking for trouble. Is it a mere co-incidence that Ireland, the most fluoridated country in Europe, has the highest cancer and heart disease rates, rampant Alzheimer's and high incidence of broken hips? Hardly, when similar increases were registered in the American cities that started fluoridating. And if it is so good for our teeth, why are we in sixth place in the European caries league, after 5 non-fluoridating countries? There are vested interests that have been pushing fluoride for almost 50 years now, but there is a change happening due to the research and the dubious history of fluoridation that has been released over the last ten years. Help to speed that change by publicising this health horror for what it is – someone's handy way to turn what would otherwise be classed as toxic waste – hydrofluorosilicic acid- and would have to be treated at great expense, into a commodity that they sell to us to dump unregulated into our own drinking water, on a false promise.
For the buried report summary check: http://euesireland.blogspot.com/
The Oireachtas (Joint Irish Houses of Parliament) Draft report on Water Fluoridation in Ireland 11/1/2007 presented by Mr John Gormley T.D., now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Ireland.


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I am very pleased to present my Report on Water Fluoridation to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children. I was appointed first to undertake this work in 1999 during the last Dáil. Unfortunately, I was advised by the Committee Chairman to interrupt my work when the then Minister for Health and Children, Micheal Martin, set up the Fluoridation Forum to conduct a similar investigation into the action of fluoride. Following the completion of the Forum Report, the Health Committee recommenced its own investigation. Given that sufficient time has now elapsed since the publication of the Forum Report and that not a single recommendation out of 33 has been implemented, it is timely to publish our deliberations on the subject.

Having agreed to become the rapporteur, I quickly discovered that I faced a complex and mammoth task. Not only did I have to analyse the testimony of those who appeared before the Committee, I also had to wade through the often contradictory scientific evidence and the endless archive material.

I have tried to distil the essential elements of my research into this report. As well as looking at why water fluoridation was introduced into this country, the report seeks to answer two fundamental questions — (1) how effective is water fluoridation in fighting tooth decay? (2) what are the side effects of water fluoridation?

Those who came before the committee had often diametrically opposed views on the subject. There is no doubting the sincerity and dedication of both sides in this debate. It is worth noting however, that whereas there was almost unanimity in the dental community when water fluoridation was introduced as to its effectiveness, there are now clear differences of opinion among dentists on the subject. One only has to contrast the testimony of Dr. O'Mullane and Dr. Clarkson with Dr. MacAuley and Dr. Limeback to understand how greatly views diverge on water fluoridation. But there is some common ground. And it's worth reflecting on these points of agreement at the very outset. When fluoride was first introduced it was thought generally to act systemically i.e. it had to be ingested. We now know it acts topically i.e. in the mouth and on the surface of the tooth. We also know that there are increased sources of fluoride now compared to fifty years ago. All sides admit - and the evidence points to - a huge increase in the incidence of fluorosis, a condition which indicates an excess of fluoride. Both sides also took the view that fluoride in toothpaste did reduce the rate of dental caries. They also agree that children who use fluoride toothpaste require supervision and proper instruction.

The crucial question for the committee was whether the perceived benefits of water fluoridation out weighed the negative side effects. The contribution of international expert, Dr. Hardy Limeback was persuasive in this regard when he commented that using the most authoritative international data, the risk of fluorosis far outweighed the benefits of fluoride. Dr. Limeback was also very clear in his recommendation that fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies. Indeed, his advice seemed to have been accepted by the Food Safety Authority until it changed its mind in circumstances that have not been explained to the satisfaction of the committee. The committee has also noted the latest advice of the American Dental Association which states: "If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride". (ADA 9th November 2006).

Given that it is extremely impractical for mothers who are bottle feeding to source non-fluoridated water supplies and that fluorosis rates continue to rise, our central recommendation — based on the precautionary principle - is that the practice of water fluoridation should end immediately. All of the available evidence suggests that not only will this lead to a marked reduction in fluorosis but that there would not be a significant rise in dental caries.

The evidence presented by Dr O'Mullane showed that Ireland had a very serious dental health problem in the 1950s and early 60s. All of the available historical records confirm this to be the case. They also show that Ireland had a real shortage of dentists at the time. The committee fully appreciates why a prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation seemed like a sensible approach at the time. However, we have had to base our conclusions and recommendations on all of the data now available to us. Quantifying the effectiveness of fluoridation was our most difficult task. In our view, the most accurate measurement of this is contained in the York Review, undoubtedly, the most comprehensive study ever to be carried out on water fluoridation. Similarly, we have referred to York Review in quantifying fluorosis rates.

A key recommendation of the Fluoridation Forum was the reduction in the level of fluoride in our water supplies. Significantly, this recommendation has not been implemented, and even if the fluoride levels in the water were slightly reduced, we could not recommend that this water be used to bottle feed babies.

The Ireland of 2006 is a very different place with very different standards of general and oral hygiene. We are a modem European state with dental caries rates equal to and sometimes below other EU states which do not fluoridate their water supplies. We do, however, continue to consume too much confectionary, and our snacking habits are leading to continued dental caries problems as well as higher rates of obesity. The Department for Health and Children should tackle this problem by concentrating its efforts on education in relation to better oral hygiene, banning junk food vending machines and using fiscal means to change these poor eating habits.

If our recommendations are implemented we are convinced that not only will we see a reduction in fluorosis rates but that there will also be a drop in dental caries rates.

2 CONCLUSIONS
1.The rates of dental decay and the lack of dentists justified the introduction of a prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation.(in 1960)
2.Those who advocated water fluoridation were motivated by concern about the serious decline in dental health standards.
3.We believe that basic health and hygiene habits in Irish society have changed dramatically in the intervening period.
4.We note that dental health has improved to the same degree in countries where there is no water fluoridation.
5.The Department of Health's assessment of the overwhelming benefits of water fluoridation is not justified.
6.While positive aspects of fluoridation have been over-stated, the growing negative impact has not been properly recognised. The Committee views the officially reported sevenfold increase in fluorosis since 1984, as completely unacceptable, requiring immediate action.
7.The Committee is disappointed and alarmed that no general health studies, as provided for in S.6 of the 1960 Fluoridation Act have ever been carried out, particularly considering that four in ten 15 year olds are now affected by fluorosis. By disregarding this provision of the Act, the Department of Health has left itself liable for the harmful effects of fluoridation of Irish drinking water.
8.It is the view of the committee that the Department of Health has failed to offer a coherent scientific justification for continuing the policy of water fluoridation and has notably failed to deal with Dr Connett's 50 Reasons to oppose fluoridation either in the Fluoridation Forum or since.
9.Despite emphasizing the expertise of its membership, the Fluoridation Forum failed to apply key principles of toxicology, for example the toxic dosage for Irish children. Another failure was to overlook the synergistic effects of fluoride chemicals with other substances (e.g. aluminium) that are ever-present in many Irish drinking water supplies.
10.The Committee notes that the recommendation of FSAI advising against the use of fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies was changed subsequently following representations form a minority of members in 2001.
11.The Committee believes that the manner this was done was both irregular and suspect and represented a "process mess". The replies given to the former Chair by Dr Wayne Anderson in this regard were unsatisfactory. The Committee notes a similar change in advice on using un-fluoridated water in infant formula by Prof John Clarkson.

12.The committee notes that the vast of majority of those on the Forum for fluoridation had records of being strongly in favour of water fluoridation.
13.It is clear and, indeed, accepted by both the pro-and anti- fluoridation sides that the action of fluoride is topical and not systemic.
14.We note that of the 33 recommendations of the Fluoride forum, not one has been implemented to date.
15.We believe on the basis of the international studies there would be no long-term increase in dental decay if fluoride were not added to Irish drinking water.
16.There is no evidence to suggest that Irish people are fluoride deficient, in fact, the evidence at hand suggests that we have too much fluoride in our systems.
17.On the basis of the available archive material the Committee believes that the original Fluorine consultative council did not approach its task with an open mind. It would appear to have had a very strong pro water fluoridation bias.
18.We are disappointed that only the minutes of one of the meetings of the Fluorine consultative Council survive, the others having been destroyed in a flood.
19.It is now accepted by all sides that the sources of fluoride in our diet have increased dramatically since the introduction of water fluoridation.
20.The Committee believes that fluoride toothpastes have contributed to a decline in dental caries in this country and other states.
21.Fluoride toothpastes should carry a warning about the dangers of children swallowing fluoride toothpastes, and children properly supervised when brushing their teeth using fluoride toothpaste.
22.The increase in membership of Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation from single figures when the Forum reported, to over 120 dental practitioners today reflects the growing professional opposition to the policy.
23.There is sufficient scientific evidence in relation to health effects — albeit contradictory — to justify the application of the precautionary principle. We also note the latest advice from the American Dental Association which advises parents to choose non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding babies.
24.We note that the fluoridating agent hydrofluorosilic acid has not been sanctioned by the Irish Medicines Board.
Recommendations
1.Fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies;
2.Given the impracticality of sourcing non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies, the committee — on the basis of the precautionary principle — believes the practice of water fluoridation should cease immediately;
3.The savings accruing from the policy change must be assessed in each HSE region. They should be ring-fenced before being re-allocated to educational programmes aimed at the socially deprived, in line with best practice in other European countries;
4.Independent research into general health effects should be undertaken in order to assess the full impact of lifetime fluoride exposure in the population. Particular attention should be given to effects on infants and children of exposure to fluoride from all sources;
5.The Minister for Health should not permit indiscriminate medication measures to treat the whole population via water or food because of the inability to control dosage and monitor individual reaction, evidenced by the forty year experience of water fluoridation;
6.The Government should undertake a major educational programme to encourage healthy eating in order to tackle the twin problems of dental caries and obesity;
7.More public dentists need to be employed and more regular check ups encouraged;
8.Parents should be given advice about teeth brushing and the use of fluoridated toothpaste. Along with imaginative education programmes on regular tooth brushing, existing nutritional programmes already underway should continue to target sugary diets of children from 5 yr olds to 15 yr olds. Special emphasis should be laid on initiatives that target the socially disadvantaged where dental decay linked to poor diet is most prevalent; and
9.Fluoride toothpastes should carry warnings similar to those in the United States about the dangers of swallowing fluoride toothpaste.

Everyday More Proof: Fluoride and Fluoridation Is NOT Safe and Effective!

New York - May 2007 - Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1) Fluoride chemicals are added to 2/3 of U.S. water supplies in an attempt to reduce tooth decay and is in virtually 100% of the food supply. Yet, the Centers for Disease Control reports cavities are rising in our most fluoridated generation - toddlers. (1a) Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studiespublished from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridatedcommunities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention..." They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth. Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans. Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found. "Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water... [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas... Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write. Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over- fluoridated, not under-fluoridated." "There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber. Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "...after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's group. "In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report. To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water. "Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber. In 1999, researchers found that children in Connersville, Indiana, (2) consumed over recommended levels of fluoride even though their water supply wasn't fluoridated. Organised dentistry still successfully instigated fluoridation and the American Dental Association (3) bragged about it, carelessly putting more children at risk of developing dental fluorosis.
See also my earlier posts where I compare the cancer and dental caries against the fluoridation rates across the U.S. states. Some very surprising stats show up! Get it now (free, of course) at euesireland@eircom.net

References: 1) "Community Water Fluoridation and Caries Prevention: A Critical Review," Clinical Oral Investigations, by Giuseppe Pizzo & Maria R. Piscopo & Ignazio Pizzo & Giovanna Giuliana 2007 Feb 27; [Epub ahead of print] http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pizzo-2007.pdf 1a) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_248.pdf 2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10403089&dopt=Abstract 3) http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/us_fluoridation.pdf http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.FluorideAction.Net http://www.FluorideResearch.Org Fluoridation News Releases http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/_________________New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof Fluoridation News Releases http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

Fluoride: Lies,Brown Envelopes, Subterfuge and more Lies

Corruption Revealed Among Defenders of Fluoridation
REPRINTED FROM AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN:
THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF ORAL MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY JAN, 2007

A paper provided by the Fluoride Action Network documents that some of the most influential epidemiologists of the twentieth century, defenders of water fluoridation, were extensively compromised by industry money. The original UK watchdog group article is available at this link.
The Doll-Hoover-Douglass connections.By Chris Neurath,Senior Science Researcher for FANA UK group has just revealed that the prominent epidemiologist, Sir Richard Doll, who died last year, received millions of dollars in consulting fees from chemical companies, asbestos companies, and other industries which create carcinogenic materials. Among other retainers he received $1000 a day (rising to $1500 a day) for over thirty years from Monsanto. Yet in scientific publications, as an expert witness, and before government authorities he often defended these chemicals against evidence they caused cancer.According to the UK based group injurywatch.co.uk in a sidebar entitled "Sir Richard Doll: the industry man?" they note: "In 1976, in spite of well-documented concerns on the risks of fluoridation of drinking water with industrial wastes, Doll declared that it was "unethical" not to do so."
Thus fluoride may have been the first suspected carcinogen that Doll protected. He defended water fluoridation in scientific papers, public statements, and court testimony. Fluoride has been a major pollutant from the aluminum, steel, chemical, atomic, and fertilizer industries. Fertilizer industry waste is the source of most fluoride used to fluoridate drinking water.Doll's connection with HooverDr. John Yiamouyiannis, in his book Fluoride, The Aging Factor, details what appears to have been a coordinated effort between American cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Robert Hoover, and Doll and Doll's co-worker Leo Kinlen, to publish seemingly independent, but in fact duplicate studies, finding no evidence of cancer risk from fluoridated water. Dr. Robert Hoover works at the National Cancer Institute, and is an officer in the Public Health Service Medical Corps.Correspondence, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Hoover sent Doll and Kinlen data and calculated results, and asked them to simply check the math and then publish the same results but under their names. When published, the Doll and Kinlen paper appeared to be an independent evaluation of the issue which corroborated Hoover's conclusion that there was no link between fluoridation and cancer. But in fact, it was simply a re-hash, with no independent data or new methods applied. Doll and Kinlen then sent the same data on to a third group of workers in the UK at the Royal Statistical Society and asked them to conduct yet another reiteration with the same data.This coordinated effort to make it look like three groups had independently arrived at the same finding was uncovered when it turned out that Hoover had made an error transcribing the population size of one of the study cities. The two UK papers repeated this error, proving they had not independently gathered any data. In their private correspondence, they admit this gaff, and also admit they conducted no new analyses but simply repeated the same calculations on the same erroneous data.In a letter from Hoover to Kinlen and Doll: "I am sorry for this error, particularly since it seems to have been perpetuated by yourselves and the Royal Statistical Society. I am a bit distressed also that neither you nor the Society checked some of the original numbers. When Professor Doll visited us, I believe I suggested that the numbers be checked against the original sources, since our reanalyses were done very hastily and under severe political pressure. In fact, I thought the Society had abstracted the data themselves, since I did not send them any of the original material. However, they must have obtained it elsewhere, as they have the erroneous number also." (Sept. 26, 1977)Of course, the Royal Statistical Society authors did receive it "elsewhere", from Doll and Kinlen. That's why it contained the same error in the data, exactly as it had been given to Doll and Kinlen by Hoover.This embarrassing episode for Robert Hoover back in the mid-1970s was not an isolated instance for him concerning the question of fluoride's carcinogenicity. In the early 1990s, right after a National Toxicology Program animal study found evidence that fluoride caused bone cancer, Hoover was again enlisted to defend against this alarming evidence. He did a new epidemiological analysis focused on bone cancers. His first method of analyzing the data returned disturbing positive results, especially for the US Public Health Service, his employer and the leading proponent of fluoridation in the US. In Hoover's comparison of changes in bone cancer rates for young males between fluoridated and non-fluoridated counties, the fluoridated counties experienced an 80% increase relative to the non-fluoridated county rates which decreased slightly.The Public Health Service then asked Hoover to conduct another analysis, using different methods to see if this association could be "confirmed". Hoover's second analysis methods were flawed. He compared rates of bone cancer in counties which were in different states and therefore not comparable. Also, Hoover had different mixes of counties occurring in the different exposure level categories. Essentially, he was comparing apples to oranges, so it was not surprising that he found no association between "duration of fluoridation" and bone cancer rates.The Hoover-Douglass connectionThe connection between Hoover and defense of fluoridation continues to the present day. Hoover was recently put in charge of the Harvard study of osteosarcoma and fluoride, taking over as Principal Investigator from Dr. Chester Douglass. Douglass has been accused of covering up his graduate student's study, which found a significant strong association between fluoridation and osteosarcoma, the most common form of bone cancer. Douglass happens to also be on the payroll of Colgate, a major seller of fluoridated toothpaste. Like Doll, Douglass appears to have a conflict of interest with industry.Douglass' student, Dr. Elise Bassin, eventually published her groundbreaking study with several Harvard co-authors but not Douglass.Hoover has kept out of the spotlight in this most recent episode, yet he has been co-author of reports and presentations which have perpetuated the cover-up of Bassin's results. These claimed no evidence of a link had been found in the Harvard osteosarcoma-fluoride study.Recently, the history of defending fluoride came full circle back to Doll. Doll's name is invoked in a letter to the editor from Douglass, responding to the publication of Bassin's findings. Douglass tries to justify the delay in publicizing Bassin's finding by citing Doll's experience after uncovering cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer in the 1950s. Douglass incorrectly states Doll chose to delay publication of his first findings until follow-up studies could confirm the link. Yet it was not Doll's choice to delay publication, it was the head of the UK Medical Research Council who urged delay, saying that Doll's startling new finding would be too disturbing in a country where over 3/4ths of men smoked.Perhaps things have not changed so much. In the US in 2006 is it "too disturbing" to publicize a scientific study which finds that fluoridation causes bone cancer, in a nation where 2/3rds of all people drink fluoridated water?Have Douglass and Hoover suppressed Bassin's findings? Where will their own analyses lead? Their study began in 1993 and today, 13 years later, they have yet to publish a single result of those studies. Yet they keep promising that they will publish soon, including results of more "sophisticated" analyses using bone biopsy specimens to determine fluoride exposure. Yet recent revelations indicate their bone specimen study has a severe design flaw, potentially fatal to its validity.The control bone samples were all obtained from cancer patients in the same hospitals as the osteosarcoma cases. But never mentioned publicly until this year was that all these cancer controls were bone-cancer patients, mostly with Ewing's sarcoma, the second most common form of bone cancer after osteosarcoma. If fluoride causes both these forms of bone cancer, which is distinctly possible because fluoride concentrates in bones, then using Ewing's sarcoma patients as controls would make as little sense as comparing levels of cigarette use between cases with one form of lung cancer and controls with a slightly different form of lung cancer. This is one of the worst choices of controls imaginable. Yet it is exactly what Hoover and Douglass have done. If their comparison of osteosarcoma to Ewing's sarcoma patients shows little difference in fluoride exposures, that will hardly be convincing evidence that fluoride does not cause bone cancer.US Public Health Service employees like Hoover defending fluoridation against scientific evidence of carcinogenicity may represent a new, insidious form of conflict of interest. It is not as obvious as industry funding a scientific researcher. Instead, a federal agency is the intermediary between industries' interests and questionable scientific studies. Behind the scenes efforts by polluting industries seem to have played an important role in the US PHS choosing to endorse and promote fluoridation, starting in 1950.Now we learn that Sir Richard Doll, a supposedly independent academic/government researcher, received millions of dollars from polluting industries. In the 1970s Robert Hoover of the National Cancer Institute worked closely behind the scenes with Doll to defend fluoride. Today Hoover is still apparently defending fluoride against scientific evidence. Hoover's colleague Douglass invokes Doll to justify delaying publication of an important new study which found a clear link between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Where does industry manipulation of science leave off and government collusion take over?Yiamouyiannis J (1986) Fluoride: The Aging Factor, Health Action Press, Delaware Ohio.Doll R, Kinlen L (1977) Fluoridation of water and cancer mortality in the USA, Lancet, pp 1300-1302.Newell, DJ (1977) Fluoridation of water supplies and cancer - a possible association? Applied Statistics, pp 125-135.-- cneurath@AmericanHealthStudies.org

Tooth Decay Rise in U.S. Children -May1st

ATLANTA (AP) - Preschoolers are getting more cavities. The largest government study of the nation's dental care in more than 25 years shows a rise in tooth decay in children's baby teeth. The study also notes a drop in the number of adults who visited a dentist in the past year, a possible indicator of declining health insurance. The study's lead author is Doctor Bruce Dye of the National Center for Health Statistics. Some reasons he cites for the increase in children's tooth decay: parents are giving their children more processed snack foods than in the past, and children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water.

Here we go again! Instead of looking at the reality, dentists continue in denial.

Dr. Bruce A. Dye assigns part of the blame for the increase in U.S. children’s dental caries to “children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water”. When does the penny actually drop for these people? The US has 100% fluoridated most of its cities for 50 years now, and there is still complete surprise that “poorer people” (i.e. in general, inner city dwellers) have much higher caries rates than others. This is the same racial group, black people, who 70 years ago had the BEST teeth in America! Sheer co-incidence that the highest fluoride areas have the highest caries rates?
Look at the CDC figures across the whole United States and you find there is NO definitive correlation between dental caries reduction and fluoride use. Co-incidence? I can send you the spreadsheet.
Look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics of cancer rates in the various states and set them against the fluoridation rates and you DO find a clear trend to higher cancer death rates in the most fluoridated states. Co-incidence?
I hardly think that the worst caries groups (the poor) are the same ones who are substituting expensive bottled water for tapwater for their children! Does Dr. Dye (not a medical doctor, I take it) really expect us to swallow that one?
Fluoride is pervasive throughout the food and drink chain in fluoridated countries now. Hardly anything escapes some measure of fluoride toxification – children ingesting fruit and soda drinks are, along with an overabundance of sugars, taking in AND RETAINING in their bones and organs, high levels of fluoride. For anyone to suggest that even more fluoride is the answer is to go beyond foolishness to wilful assault on the health of the nation. Maybe Dr. Dye is aptly named.
The dental profession is, as usual, looking for a scapegoat to divert attention from their failure to tackle the caries of those who cannot afford their treatment. More fluoride, more fluoride is their call, as if the human body is suffering from a lack of fluoride, as if it doesn’t have a multitude of negative health effects on the rest of the body, as if it isn’t causing cancer, as if it has actually been tested before use for health, which it never has been on a human population. Meanwhile the 67% of Americans, the Irish, some Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders using fluoride (by which I mean, of course, hydrofluorosilicic acid – the waste from phosphate fertiliser factories which is used to “fluoridate”) DO see their cancer rates rising, their asthma and heart disease rates rising, their sperm counts decreasing, their IQ’s reducing, ADD and Alzheimer's and autism rates increasing and, oh, the caries rate increasing! But, surely, that is all just co-incidence?http://euesireland.blogspot.com/

WELL, DAUGHTER OF DR.DYE, YOUR LOYALTY TO YOUR FAMILY IS TO BE COMMENDED. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU CAN RESEARCH AND ANSWER THE 5 QUESTIONS POSED IN MY "RAMBLINGS" ABOVE, THEN I MAY FIND SOME RESPECT FOR YOU AS A SERIOUS AND CONCERNED CITIZEN.REGARDS.

The Fluoride and Cancer Link Exposed

WASHINGTON D.C.
100% FLUORIDATED

241.2 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 2,860 in the District of Columbia.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 1,180 in the District of Columbia.

KENTUCKY
99.60% FLUORIDATED

227 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 22,720 in Kentucky.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 9,360 in Kentucky.

HAWAII
8.60% FLUORIDATED

158 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 5,070 in Hawaii.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,090 in Hawaii.

UTAH
2.20% FLUORIDATED

151 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 6,360 in Utah.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,620 in Utah.

All figures from the American Cancer Society and the CDC websites cross-referenced by myself.
They feature the two most and the two least fluoridated areas in the States, yet the trend continues when all the other states are included. How come government don't make these statistic correlations themselves? Is it so that the authorities can hide the relationship between high levels of fluoride in a state's drinking water and the high levels of cancers in that state? I cannot paste an Excel spreadsheet to this blog, so if anyone wants the whole list of U.S. states that I put together and wants to see the undeniable link to higher rates, incidence and trends in cancer to higher levels of fluoride in drinking water, then send a request to euesireland@eircom.net. These are truly frightening figures!

Who Watches the Watchers?

Who Watches the Watchers?

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 management’s 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 reviewer’s 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 Subcommittee’s 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 uncontrolled 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 General’s 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;
8) 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 America’s 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. Children’s 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 brain’s 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 EPA’s 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 EPA’s 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 General’s Panel on Fluoride
We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon General’s panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon General’s 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 Legislature’s 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 Flaherty’s 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 Supplies." 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 children’s 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. Limeback’s 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.
REFERENCES: DR. HIRZY'S PRESENTATION
1. Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E et al, 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 (SEERS) 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. et al, Neurotoxicol Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995) 4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] New 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, 1991.5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994)6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R. et al, JADA 52 296-306 (1956)7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmo University, Sweden. URL: www.whocollab.odont.lu.se/countriesalphab.html8. 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. 20013.9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt, B.A., Keels., Heller, K.E., J. Dent. Res.2000 Feb; 79 (2): 761-9.10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991) 11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B. et al, Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S. et al, Fluoride 28 (1995)13. Chronic administration of aluminum - fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A. et al, Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998)14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan et al, 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 General's (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. et al, New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. et al, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. et al, Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999)20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 1-16 (1997)21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. 22. 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.
The media didn't cover Dr. Hirzy's testimony. Hydrofluosilicic acid is the primary substance used to fluoridate drinking water in the United States; it contains fluoride, arsenic, cadmium, polonium-210, and lead. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate hydrofluosilicic acid is safe for human consumption. Dr. Hirzy stated:
"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. Another paper 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 flouride, viz. one part per million. And another (article) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other papers. . . ."
Recent academic testing of U.S. students reveals:
". . . U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, mid-school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete (with foreign students-ed) . . . 'we appear to be the bottom' at the high school level. . . . People have a tendency to think this picture bleak, but it doesn't apply to their own school. Chances are, even if your school compares well in SAT scores, it will still be a lightweight on an international scale." [1]

Kids & Osteoporosis - An Epidemic

Courtesy of Parents.Com:

The Broken-Bone Epidemic
Calcium deficiency in U.S. kids is at an all-time high -- and their bodies may pay the price for a lifetime.
By Sandra Gordon

Pages in this Story:
•
Osteoporosis and Kids

•
Substitutions, Supplements, and Exercise
•
Steps Toward Healthy Bones

•
Surprising Calcium Sources

Osteoporosis and Kids
You wouldn't think that osteoporosis -- the brittle-bone disease that afflicts 10 million Americans over age 50 -- is something you need to worry about for your kids. But now you do. Just ask Maribel Burke, a mother of two from Jacksonville, Florida...

Full story at: http://parents.com/parents/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/parents/story/data/1171647087699.xml&catref=prt83&ordersrc=rafstory