Scientists report a link between dental fluorosis and periodontal disease in the June 2007 Indian Journal of Dental Research. (1) Dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown stained and/or pitted teeth - is a visual manifestation of fluoride overdose during childhood. Dental fluorosis afflicts from 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. schoolchildren, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2) Inhabitants of the Davangere district of India were studied where natural water fluoride levels ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 parts-per-million (ppm) which is similar to fluoride levels allowed in U.S. water supplies (up to 4 ppm). The sample consisted of 1,029 subjects between 15- and 74-years-old. As the degree of dental fluorosis increased, periodontitis (advanced gum infection) increased. "The results suggest that there is a strong association of occurrence of periodontal disease in high-fluoride areas," write Vandana and Reddy. "Surprisingly, studies have not paid attention to the periodontal status in high-fluoride areas from a research perspective," the authors write. "In addition to inflammatory process, which remains common to high- and low-fluoride areas, the fluorosis-induced changes in hard and soft tissues of periodontium requires... attention to suspect fluoride as an etiological (environmental) agent for periodontal disease," the authors conclude. Ireland and two thirds of U.S. public water suppliers purposely add fluoride chemicals (silicofluorides) in an attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.
The National Research Council advises more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, the immune deficient, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions and more. (3) Studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficits, thyroid dysfunction, kidney, tooth and bone damage. (3a) But government officials want even more studies before they condemn fluoridation. "Who will decide when fluoride's mounting risks outweigh its questionable benefits. The individual or the government?" asks Paul Beeber, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "Fluoridation leaves it in the hands of the government." "Fluoridation chemicals are in short supply these days," (5) says Beeber, "This would be a good time to gracefully bow out of water fluoridation." , www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=71584
The majority of people surveyed in Donegal are above the safe fluoride intake level!
This article is from the VOICE IRELAND website - for a free list of 50 bottled waters available in Ireland and their fluoride and mineral contents, please send an email toeuesireland@eircom.net.
Seven out of ten people in Co Donegal are getting too much fluoride, says VOICE campaigner Robert Pocock. His comments are backed up by results from a survey involving volunteers from three different fluoridated areas of County Donegal, who monitored their urinary fluoride intake over a 24-hour period.
The survey was carried out by Clane GP, Dr Andrew Rynne who engaged an EU accredited pathology laboratory to obtain the results. Urine samples from Inishowen, Letterkenny and Stranorlar were obtained from people aged between 19 and 68 and evenly split between men and women. 72% of the subjects tested in Co Donegal were at or above the safe intake of fluoride. (1) The safe level was based on the UK Food Standard Agency guideline value based on daily fluoride intake related to body weight. The proportion at or above the safe limit in largely unfluoridated UK is 20%, suggesting that the addition of fluoride to Irish drinking water is completely unjustifiable.
“Of the 32 subjects who volunteered, only nine tested within a safe intake” said Dr Rynne. “This confirms the suspicion that the fluoridation of Irish drinking water is the major contributor to fluoride over-exposure. Several subjects are many times over the stated safe intake.”
These results highlight the negligence of the Health Minister Mary Harney who after over two years in office has still failed to investigate fluoride exposure in the population. In the light of this evidence from three different parts of Co Donegal, her recently introduced Regulation (S.I.42,2007) reducing the fluoride concentration by a small amount on July 1st 2007, is a totally inadequate response to the problem of fluoride over-exposure. (2) Pocock added “Donegal councillors should now instruct the eleven public water supplies (3) that dose the drinking water of 75,000 people in Donegal with fluoride, not only to turn down the fluoride taps but to turn them off completely. Neither the new Pollen Dam supply that came on stream recently nor the Killybegs supply, where local fishermen refused years ago to allow their fish to be processed with this toxic chemical, are fluoridated. In view of this alarming new evidence, all of Donegal people exposed to fluoridated water supplies are at a risk”.
The national implications of this evidence is alarming since 73% of the population (3 million) are served with fluoridated drinking water, indicating that over two million people could be getting above the safe daily intake of fluoride. (4)There is also plenty of other supporting evidence such as the recent oral health survey revealing that one in three fifteen year-olds have dental fluorosis. (5) This is caused by excessive fluoride during the tooth-forming years. Other recent advice from the American Dental Assocation warns parents not to use fluoridated tap water in infant formula because of the risk of fluorosis. (6)
Since there is no cure or treatment for fluorosis, only prevention, it is obvious that the Health Minister must immediately turn off the fluoride taps across the country.
For more info contact Robert Pocock of Voice Ireland on 086 811 3071
NOTES
(1) The UK Food Standards Agency has defined under 0.05mg Fluoride per kg body weight per day as the safe intake. The UK National Diet & Nutrition survey (2003) revealed that 20% of the population (19 - 64 yr olds) are above this safe level. While only six million people in England have fluoridated drinking water, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland have all rejected it.
(3) Fluoridated Public Water Supplies in Co Donegal. Area Population Area Population Area Population Buncrana 3,500 Gortahork 4,200 Rosses Bundoran 6,000 Inishowen E 5,050 Regional 8,000 Cranford 839 Letterkenny 17,000 River Eske 4,500 Lough Mourne17,000 Creeslough 4,000 Milford 4,000
Source EPA The Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland, 2005
Dan Stockin Charges CDC with Ethics Violations re: Fluoride The Lillie center takes on The CDC!!!! (on Fluoride)
August 13, 2007
The Tainted Protector of America's Health that is the CDC is finally coming under fire for it's biased promotion of the industrial toxic waste dumping that is fluoridation. Look back to my blog post that searched for {and found} information on the CDC site which was hidden away, but which showed that fluoridation was A) not effective against caries and B) probably a major carcinogenic effector. If you want the spreadsheet where I compare the caries and cancer rates across the U.S. against the fluoridation rates (according to the CDC's own figures) then send me an email to euesireland@eircom.net.
Dear All, Last Thursday, the same day as the Fluoride Action Network released theProfessionals' Statement calling for end to fluoridation worldwide, theLillie Center was making a thrust into the belly of the beast: the CDC -that continues to promote fluoridation despite the growing evidence of harm and little evidence of benefit. In a press release issued this morning, the Lillie Center announced that it had filed ethics charges against the CDC's Oral Health Division and CDC's director Julie Gerberding for their failure to follow the ethical code produced by the CDC and promoted by them around the country. The charge specifically focuses on their failure to warn the public, especially vulnerable sub-groups, of the dangers posed by fluoridated water -dangers which were clearly articulated in the NRC (2006) review of fluoride's toxicity as well as concerns raised by the US Department of Agriculture about the total dose of fluoride people are getting today from a variety of sources, including the food supply. According to the complaint, "the unethical actions of Oral Health Division manager William Maas and CDC Director Julie Gerberding are --serious and egregious in not disseminating findings of the National Research Council that kidney patients, diabetics, infants, and seniors are especially susceptible to harm from fluoride." The spokesperson for the Lillie Center, Dan Stockin stated that, "We have provided very specific examples of statements and actions by Doctors Maas and Gerberding that show blatant disregard for the most fundamental principles of ethics in public health. CDC is striving mightily to defend its policy supporting water fluoridation to prevent cavities, but the facts about harm from fluoride are now coming from highly respected organizations like theNational Research Council." The Lillie Center used the Professionals' Statement as supporting material in its arguments. Below is their press release and the full statement with attachments can be reviewed at http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.ethics.complaint.aug.13.2007.pdf I urge readers to forward a copy of this press release to local news outlets. Paul Connett The Lillie Center, Inc.P.O. Box 839 Ellijay GA 30540Ph: 706.669.0786 // Fax: 706.635.8170 Email: stockin2@yahoo.com or dan@thelilliecenter.com
NEWS RELEASE -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: 706-669-0786 Formal Complaint Charges CDC Oral Health Division with Ethics Violations August 13, 2007 A joint meeting of two ethics committees for the Centers for Disease Control has received a detailed formal complaint alleging a series of unethical activities by the CDC Oral Health Division and the CDC Director. The complaint points to a quote by a highly placed CDC official that the public health ethics code CDC espouses is not being internally applied within CDC itself. The complaint specifically questions why CDC's own data on disproportionate harm from ingested fluoride in minority groups is not being communicated to these communities, and points to new, state of the art National Research Council information showing certain groups to be especially susceptible to harm from fluoride.The charges were presented to CDC's joint ethics panel on August 9th by Daniel Stockin, a public health professional of The Lillie Center, Inc., a private sector firm. In a separate development, news surfaced on the same day that 600 doctors, dentists, and other professionals have signed a petition calling for a halt to water fluoridation and for congressional hearings on fluoridation (see: www.FluorideAction.net).According to the complaint, the unethical actions of Oral Health Division manager William Maas and CDC Director Julie Gerberding are "serious and egregious" in not disseminating findings of the National Research Council that kidney patients, diabetics, infants, and seniors are especiallysusceptible to harm from fluoride. The complaint contains photos of a condition called dental fluorosis, a staining and pitting of teeth indicative of overexposure to fluoride that is disproportionately present in African Americans and perhaps Mexican Americans, compared to Caucasians."This is an explosive and deeply disturbing issue," states Stockin. "We have provided very specific examples of statements and actions by Dr.'s Maas and Gerberding that show blatant disregard for the most fundamental principles of ethics in public health. CDC is striving mightily to defend its policy supporting water fluoridation to prevent cavities, but the facts about harm from fluoride are now coming from highly respected organizations like theNational Research Council.""People with kidney disease or on dialysis should see this complaint and the report by the National Research Council on fluoride," Stockin says, "And if you happen to be a member of the population with diabetes or HIV, you will be amazed how the NRC report contains important information you should know about -- but that CDC has elected not to openly share with the public because it runs at odds with putting fluoride in drinking water." The ethics complaint and the 600 professionals' statement are the latest in a string of blows to the conventional wisdom that fluoride and water fluoridation are safe. In 2005, frustrated by EPA administrators' lack of response to mounting evidence of harm from fluoride, eleven unions within the EPA representing 7,000 lab workers, scientists, and others publicly called for the immediate halt to fluoridation based on concerns about fluoride-caused bone cancer. In 2006, the American Dental Association quietly stated on its web site that mothers of newborns might wish to consider using unfluoridated water when mixing powdered infant milk formula. CDC this year similarly changed its policy about use of fluoridated water for mixing formula, but did so only on its web site, not issuing even a press release to alert millions of parents to the news. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has recently developed software to begin to assess the quantity of fluoride Americans are ingesting, citing concern that cumulative fluoride intake could lead to a painful bone and joint condition called "skeletal fluorosis." The new, detailed list of alleged unethical actions by CDC in protecting its long-held policy is likely to spur groups and legislators across the country to join in the call for an official ethics inquiry into CDC's actions. Were CDC officials willing to sacrifice the health of Americans in order to prevent embarrassment to the agency and themselves? Stockin points to supporting materials in the ethics complaint that offer little wiggle room for discomfited CDC officials. "At-risk groups have a moral right to be told the whole story about fluoride," Stockin says. "Get ready for their lawsuits. The world is not flat, and fluoride is not safe," he says.The full text of the ethics complaint with its attachments can be accessed at:http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.ethics.complaint.aug.13.2007.pdf .Daniel Stockin of The Lillie Center may be contacted at (706)-669-0786
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
Cuppa, Anyone? I must admit that it doesn’t surprise me that a procedure as obnoxious as adding chemical waste to the drinking water supply comes from the desks of coffee-gulping Americans!
If the idea had been dreamed up in the marketing agencies of the U.K., India or Ireland, it would never have gotten off the ground. Why? Simply because those societies are tea drinking cultures and drank very little coffee during the 50’s when this monstrous idea was first mooted by the higher echelons in the aluminium, steel and nuclear industries. So what, you ask?
Because the tea-drinking cultures would have realised that because of the high levels of drinking teas, many people were already imbibing more than the recommended levels of natural fluoride through their cuppas in the morning , afternoon and evening already!
In fact, your average cup of tea holds fluoride at the rate of 6mg per litre, with green teas clocking in at up to 12 mg of fluoride! (Corrected from a previous post that said 6mg per cup). The Tolerable Upper Intake Level is 10 milligrams of fluoride daily (it was set that high in order to avoid crippling skeletal fluorosis later on in life - which you also actually risk at only 8mg per day). Then include all the other sources of fluoride that the average person intakes from nearly all processed foods and drinks manufactured in water fluoridated areas.
The RECOMMENDED intake by the pro-fluoride lobby is 4mg per day!
SO…If you use fluoridated tapwater at 1PPM (or 1 mg/L) to make your cuppa, then boil the water (usual procedure) – that concentrates the fluoride which can then more easily be retained in the body, binds itself with aluminium and lead (both frequent in our pipes, and Aluminium is also used as an agent to clear the turbidity out of tapwater) AND if you happen to have used an aluminium kettle or pan to boil that water ( as was common up until stainless steel became more popular) that added further massive concentrations of aluminium to your simple cuppa. What was a relaxing tannic brew had now become (without your knowing or being warned about it) a satanic chemical hodge-podge!!!
50% of fluoride intake is retained in the body by adults, and 80% by children. People with Alzheimer’s Disease have much higher levels of aluminium in their brains than normal. So when Granny who led a good life and only drank tea suddenly goes ga-ga, which more Grannies than ever are doing as the population ages, well, maybe we should look again at whether the reported 14% less cavities in fluoridated countries (as claimed by the fluoride lobby) is really worth the heartbreak of Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, fluorosis, bone cancers, thyroid malfunctions, heart disease and all the other negative side-effects! P.S. If anyone can supply the full text of the Mayo Clinic report below, it would be greatly appreciated…
Fluoride-Related Bone Disease Associated With Habitual Tea Consumption JULIE E. HALLANGER JOHNSON, MD; ANN E. KEARNS, MD, PHD; PATRICK M. DORAN, MD; TECK KIM KHOO, MD; ROBERT A. WERMERS, MD Individual reprints of this article are not available. Address correspondence to Robert A. Wermers, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: wermers.robert@mayo.edu). Acquired osteosclerosis is a rare disorder of bone formation but an important consideration in adults with sclerotic bones or elevated bone density results. In such patients, malignancy, hepatitis C, and fluorosis should all be considered when making a diagnosis. We describe 4 patients evaluated at our Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic from May 1, 1997, to July 1, 2006, whose bone disorders resulted from chronic fluoride exposure due to excessive tea intake. Three of these patients had toxic serum fluoride levels (>15 μmol/L). Although the clinical presentation of the patients varied, all 4 had an unexpectedly elevated spine bone mineral density that was proportionately higher than the bone mineral density at the hip. Other clinical features included gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and weight loss; lower extremity pain sometimes associated with stress fractures of the lower extremities; renal insufficiency; and elevated alkaline phosphatase levels. Readily available, tea often contains high levels of fluoride. Obsessive-compulsive drinking behaviours and renal insufficiency may predispose to excessive fluoride consumption and accumulation. The current cases show that fluoride-related bone disease is an important clinical consideration in patients with dense bones or gastrointestinal symptoms and a history of excessive tea consumption. Furthermore, fluoride excess should be considered in all patients with a history of excessive tea consumption, especially due to its insidious nature and nonspecific clinical presentation. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(6):719-724
Scientists report a link between dental fluorosis and periodontal disease in the June 2007 Indian Journal of Dental Research. (1) Dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown stained and/or pitted teeth - is a visual manifestation of fluoride overdose during childhood. Dental fluorosis afflicts from 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. schoolchildren (and 40% of Irish schoolchildren), according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2) Inhabitants of the Davangere district of India were studied where natural water fluoride levels ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 parts-per-million (ppm) which is similar to fluoride levels allowed in U.S. water supplies (up to 4 ppm). The sample consisted of 1,029 subjects between 15- and 74-years-old. As the degree of dental fluorosis increased, periodontitis (advanced gum infection) increased. "The results suggest that there is a strong association of occurrence of periodontal disease in high-fluoride areas," write Vandana and Reddy. "Surprisingly, studies have not paid attention to the periodontal status in high-fluoride areas from a research perspective," the authors write. "In addition to inflammatory process, which remains common to high- and low-fluoride areas, the fluorosis-induced changes in hard and soft tissues of periodontium requires … attention to suspect fluoride as an etiological (environmental) agent for periodontal disease," the authors conclude. Two thirds of U.S. public water suppliers ( and 100% of Irish public water supplies ) purposely add fluoride chemicals (silicofluorides) in an attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers. Some U.S. communities have natural fluoride levels up to 4 ppm.. "How much longer do the American ( AND IRISH!)people have to be the guinea pigs in the U.S.'s fluoridation experiment," asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. The National Research Council advises more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, the immune deficient, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions and more. (3) Studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficits, thyroid dysfunction, kidney, tooth and bone damage. (3a) But government officials want even more studies before they condemn fluoridation. "Who will decide when fluoride's mounting risks outweigh its questionable benefits. The individual or the government?" asks Beeber. "Fluoridation leaves it in the hands of the government." "Fluoridation chemicals are in short supply these days," (5) says Beeber, "This would be a good time to gracefully bow out of water fluoridation." New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=71584
Excerpts from The Secret War and The Fluoride Conspiracy By Dr. Geoffrey E. Smith The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has always measured the safety of fluoridation on the basis of one study of crippling skeletal fluorosis, which was first published in 1935. The EPA's regulation for the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water was established for one purpose - to prevent this disease. However, crippling is the [bioaccumulative] end stage of chronic fluoride poisoning. The earlier stages involve gastrointestinal problems, arthritis, and osteoporosis. None of these earlier symptoms are considered in the regulation ... only the end stage. In 1985, when the EPA [suddenly pretended there was a grand change in human biology and] raised the maximum contaminant level to 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, they used dosage figures miscalculated in 1953 by Harold C. Hodge, who was chairman of the NAS committee on toxicology. Hodge's original figures (20-80 mg/day for 10-20 years) were corrected by Hodge in 1979, and by NAS in 1993. The corrected figures, based on Roholm's classic study of workers in the cryolite industry, amount to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day, for eleven years. When extrapolated over a lifetime of 55 to 96 years, these crippling dosage figures equal 1 milligram of fluoride daily for each 55 pounds of body weight ... 0.04 mg/kg/day. In the early years of water fluoridation [human experimentation], this dosage was not the norm. At that time, water was virtually the only source of fluoride in the American diet. The total intake for most adults was 0.02 mg/kg/day ... about one to one and a half milligrams of fluoride daily. Today, the figure is 0.095 mg/kg/day... from food and drinking water alone ... more than 6 milligrams daily. This increase in ingested fluoride, largely due to the use of artificial fertilizers containing fluoride, pesticide residues, dental products, and modern food processing, has changed a relatively safe dosage into one capable of causing crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, as well as the muscle pain associated with fibromyalgia. Beer and wine often contain significant quantities of fluoride, as does ordinary tea. Grape juice often contains even larger quantities of fluoride, due to the widespread use of pesticides, which remain on the grape skin. Fluoride in toothpaste can be absorbed through the tissues of the mouth, as well as swallowed accidentally. Many prescription drugs also contain fluoride. None of these items are labeled to indicate the quantity of fluoride added to the daily dietary total.
To The Editor, Onalaska Life Newspaper: Sir, (Your Guest Columnist) Dentist, Mr Randall Moseng, states that Mr Michael Berkley is beating the drum of inaccuracy. If that is the case, then Mr Moseng has a whole brass band! I hardly know where to begin to retort to his dogged "dentistry school world view", regurgitating "facts" he learned there without the benefit of actual research. But, with the reader's indulgence, I will make an attempt:- MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS:
Mr Randall Moseng: Michael Berkley makes a nice attempt to frighten the public into fearing community water fluoridation, but unfortunately his argument is mostly opinion, assertion and speculation rather than based on any actual science. PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES?
His greatest argument seems to be that fluoridating a community water supply is mass medication. Fluoride is not a medication in the water supply, it is a naturally occurring mineral found in the earth, soil and water all around the planet. IF CARIES ARE A DISEASE, AND FLUORIDE PLACED THERE IS TO FIGHT CARIES, DOESN’T THAT MAKE IT A MEDICATION? FLOURINE IS A COMMON ENOUGH ELEMENT, FOUND IN SEAWATER AT 1.35 PPM, HIGHER THAN USED IN FLUORIDATION. GOOD THAT WE DON’T DRINK SEAWATER THEN! IN SURFACE RIVER WATER IT IS AT 0.10 PPM – ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION RAISES THIS BY A FACTOR OF TEN! 0.2 PPM HAS BEEN SHOWN TO AFFECT FISH STOCKS IN RUN-OFFS FROM FLUORIDATED CITIES – SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG.
In fact, the earliest studies in the 1930s to determine the benefits of fluoridation were conducted in areas where natural fluoridation was present in the water supply and the foundations for which scientists were able to determine the proper amounts of fluoride to ingest for maximum benefit. THE STUDIES WERE TO FIND WAYS TO ELIMINATE FLUOROSIS. THE LIMITS SET ARE AN ARBITRARY GUESS BUILT ON ERRONEOUS SCIENCE. MODERN TECHNOLOGY HAS PROVED NEUROTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS AT 1PPM. ORIGINAL "RESEARCH" WAS FUNDED BY ALCOA AND ALUMINIUM, NUCLEAR AND STEEL INDUSTRY PARTNERS. Water fluoridation involves precise adjustment of the existing naturally occurring fluoride levels to ideal levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service. THE ORIGINAL BRIEF TO SELL FLUORIDE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WAS INSTIGATED BY THE HEAD OF THE TREASURY DEPT., WHICH RAN THE P.H.S. (At the end of the war, with massive amounts of fluoride waste needing disposal, the Public Health Service began pushing to add fluoride to the water in Grand Rapids, Mich., and dozens of other U.S. cities. At the time, the Public Health Service was being run by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), which had dominated fluoride research since the 1920s. By 1950, as the fluoridation campaign gained steam, the Public Health Service was headed by another top Alcoa official, Oscar R. Ewing, who in turn was aided by Edward L. Bernays, the father of modern public relations and author of the book "Propaganda," who sought to portray fluoride's opponents as wackos.)
No, community water fluoridation is not mass medication. Mr. Berkley and his ilk have been beating this drum of inaccuracy for many years under the guise of “too much government.” He claims the chemicals commonly used to adjust fluoride levels to optimum levels are similar in chemical composition to “waste products of the fertilizer industry.” What he neglects to tell readers is that they are not the source of said chemicals. H20 is water, H202 is hydrogen peroxide. Similar chemical composition, but one is essential for human life, one is not. THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR – THEY ARE ACTUALLY WASTE PRODUCTS FROM THE FLORIDA PHOSPHATE CHIMNEY SCRUBBERS (AND IN EUROPE FROM FINLAND AND BENELUX PHOSPHATE FERTILISER COMPANIES) – THIS CHEMICAL IS HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID – H2SiF6 – A CHEMICAL HODGE PODGE WHICH INCLUDES CHROMIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, LOTS OF PHOSPHORUS, SULPHUR,MERCURY, INDEED OVER 30 CHEMICALS ARE INVOLVED! SEE MY BLOG FOR THE PRECISE BREAKDOWN OF A TYPICAL ANALYSIS.
Dentistry simply supports this idea as a cost effective means to prevent tooth decay. DENTISTRY NEVER LOOKS AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION – ONLY AT THE MOUTH.
Fluoridation always wins in the court of law as a safe, effective, inexpensive means to protect the public health. The truth is, no court of last resort (including the California Supreme Court in 2006) has ruled against community water fluoridation. Ever. NOT QUITE TRUE - (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.)
He argues that we do not have data to know the long term effects of fluoridation. Again, here he is either ignoring the literature, or refuses to acknowledge that over 60 years of scientific data supports the practice of community water fluoridation. RUBBISH! THE LAST 30 YEARS HAVE SHOWN A LOT MORE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HUMANS THAN POSITIVE ONES. DENTAL CARIES HAVE DROPPED WORLD-WIDE, WITH OR WITHOUT FLUORIDE, IT IS THE SAME. AS SCIENTISTS, CHEMISTS AND TOXICOLOGISTS LOOK AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS, MORE AND MORE ARE COMING OUT AGAINST THIS DISGUSTING PRACTICE OF DUMPING CHEMICAL WASTE INTO DRINKING WATER. SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE E.P.A. SCIENTISTS UNION GAVE TO A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. THEY WORK WITH TOXIC WASTE EVERY DAY, THEY INVESTIGATE IT AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS IT POSES EVERY DAY, AND THEY FEEL THAT THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE STOPPED! WHAT CREDENTIALS FOR ACTUALLY WORKING WITH THIS TOXIC WASTE DOES MR MOSENG HAVE? THE YORK REVIEW IN THE U.K LOOKED AT OVER 3000 STUDIES OF FLUORIDE AND FOUND: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.” – READ THE FULL TEXT ON http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
Frankly, it is almost cavalier of him to suggest proper oral hygiene at home is the only answer to a healthy mouth and prevention of oral manifestations. He is obviously ignoring a big at-risk segment of the population who are at or below the poverty line and lack proper access to good dental care and frequently have poor oral hygiene habits. IN 1937, THE A.D.A PUBLISHED RESEARCH WHICH SHOWED THE BLACK PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S. HAD VERY LOW CARIES RATES. MUCH LOWER THAN WHITES. AFTER 50 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION, BLACK PEOPLES TEETH ARE THE WORST IN THE COUNTRY. THEY ARE ALSO PRONE TO DAMAGED IMMUNE SYSTEMS DUE TO POOR DIET. FLUORIDE THEREFORE HAS PROPORTIONALLY GREATER EFFECTS FOR THE POOR ON THEIR GENERAL HEALTH THAN ON HIGHER INCOME GROUPS. WHEN GIVEN ACCESS TO DENTAL TREATMENT, POORER PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE VERY GOOD ON THE TAKE-UP OF THOSE SERVICES, SO THE HIGHER CARIES RATES CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO POOR DENTAL REGIMES, BUT MUST ALSO INCLUDE DIET. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT FLUORIDE INGESTION OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS MAKES TEETH BRITTLE. HAVE YOU SEEN PEOPLE WITH BROKEN TEETH? THIS HAPPENS MUCH MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE!
What about the senior citizen who cannot get to a dentist easily due to a physical limitation? Community water fluoridation helps young and old the most, and it is a good thing, since they are the most in need. RIDICULOUS POINT TO MAKE – RESEARCH HAS BEEN PUBLISHED TO SHOW THAT FLUORIDE HAS LITTLE OR NO EFFECT ON OLDER PEOPLE’S TEETH!
Mr. Berkley also questions whether we should use “the public water supply to deliver drugs, chemicals or substances for the prevention of disease.” I suggest the answer is yes — as evidenced by the use of iodized salt (prevents thyroid problems like goiter), Vitamin D to milk (links with calcium to strengthen bones) and Vitamin C to many foods (to prevent many ailments such as scurvy). MR. MOSENG AGAIN MISSES THE POINT – PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE TO TAKE THESE THINGS. FLUORIDATED WATER MEANS THAT THEY ARE FORCED TO TAKE IT, AND THAT IT IS IN EVERYTHING MANUFACTURED IN FLUORIDATED AREAS, AS WELL. HE FEELS THAT IT IS OK TO MEDICATE PEOPLE THIS WAY – MOST PEOPLE, WHEN ASKED, DON’T.
Go ahead, Google fluoride on the Internet. But beware while the Internet can be a wonderful tool and great resource for information, it is fraught with hucksters and charlatans purported to be authentic or scientifically based but are in fact distortions of fact and merely opinion to skew the truth and support a belief system rather than present true science in an unbiased fashion. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, MR. MOST PEOPLE I KNOW WHO ARE AGAINST FLUORIDE AND WANT TO TELL OTHERS ABOUT IT HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN. THEY MERELY SEEK TO ALERT PEOPLE TO A HARMFUL PRACTICE WHICH THEY HAVE RESEARCHED THEMSELVES, AND/OR HAVE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF THE HARMFUL EFFECTS TO HEALTH OF THIS PRACTICE. NOW WHO IS PEDDLING CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
Please take the time to visit the Web sites of authorities charged with protecting the public such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov), American Dental Association (ada.org), Academy of General Dentistry (agd.org) to learn what science says about fluoridating your water. WHICH REMINDS ME, THE FLUORIDE LOBBY TOOK THE NAME http://www.fluoridealert.com/ TO CONFUSE PEOPLE AND TAKE THEM AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL SITE http://www.fluoridealert.org/ !! LOVELY PEOPLE, INSTANTLY TRUSTWORTHY - NOT.
And finally, Berkley even goes so far as to claim that fluoride does not prevent cavities. Truth is, the scientific community has conducted dozens of peer reviewed, non-biased, double blind credible studies since 1945 and the overwhelming weight of evidence concludes that fluoridation provides a clear, real, measurable, direct correlation with a decrease in cavity rates for all people, whether they practice proper oral hygiene or not. FLUORIDE HAS AN EFFECT ON CAVITIES, IT KILLS THE ENZYMES WHICH CAUSE CARIES – THAT IS WHY PEOPLE USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE. PUTTING IT IN DRINKING WATER WHEN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WORKS TOPICALLY AND NOT SYSTEMICALLY IS NON-SENSICAL! YOU DO NOT NEED TO DRINK IT!! PERSONALLY, I USE A NON-FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE AND MY RATE OF CARIES HAS SINCE ALMOST STOPPED. FURTHERMORE THE YORK REPORT COULD NOT FIND ANY GREATER EVIDENCE WORLDWIDE GREATER THAN A CLAIM OF 14% CARIES DECLINE WITH FLUORIDE, IN MANY PLACES THE EFFECT WAS UNMEASURABLE. EVEN SO, THIS IS LESS THAN 1/2 A TOOTH! NOT WORTH THE DOCUMENTED RISK TO OTHER BODY AREA HEALTH!
Please do not let the likes of Mr. Berkley frighten you. Dentistry is in the profession of preventing disease and promoting public health. Our focus is helping the public, not harming it. Why else would we support an idea which stands to decrease business and by extension our income? FIGURES HAVE SHOWN THAT DENTISTS MAKE ON AVERAGE 17% HIGHER INCOMES IN FLUORIDATED AREAS. THE COSTS IN WHAT THEY CALL THE “COSMETIC” TREATMENT OF FLUOROSIS ARE VERY HIGH. TODAY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KINGSTON, N.Y. THE FIRST FLUORIDATED TOWN AND ITS UNFLUORIDATED CONTROL TOWN IN THE NUMBER OF CARIES. DR.H.TRENDLEY DEAN, THE “FATHER OF FLUORIDATION” DECLARED FLUORIDE WAS SAFE AND ESTABLISHED THE FIRST TRIALS IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN IN 1945. SINCE THEN, HE HAS TWICE CONFESSED IN COURT THAT STATISTICS FROM THE EARLY TESTS, ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTING THE USE OF FLUORIDATION IN COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS, WERE INVALID.
Based on 2002 data, approximately 170 million people (or over two-thirds of the population) in the United States are served by public water systems that are fluoridated. In Minnesota and Iowa, community water fluoridation is state law. OVER 95% OF THE WORLD’S POPULATION DOES NOT FLUORIDATE ITS WATER. SOME COUNTRIES TRIED IT AND STOPPED DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS. SOME HAVE OUTLAWED THE ADDITION OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN CLEANSING AGENTS TO THEIR WATER. THE TEETH OF FORMERLY FLUORIDATED EAST GERMAN CITIZENS ACTUALLY IMPROVED WHEN THEY JOINED WITH WEST GERMANY, WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW FLUORIDATION. IF ONE LOOKS AT THE FIGURES FOR FLUORIDATION PERCENTAGES VS CARIES ACROSS THE U.S. THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT CORRELATION TO PROVE THE EFFICACY OF FLUORIDE. AFTER 60 YEARS WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANYONE ON THE PLANET TO DO A MAJOR HEALTH STUDY OF OTHER EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON A MAJOR POPULATION! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PART OF AN “EXPERIMENT”?
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]
