.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, September 30, 2005

Lymington Times published my letter in full.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Long-term Harm to FW Operators

Officials rethinking fluoridation of water
Gases causing costly damage to pump house
By Lara Brenckle
BELLEFONTE -- Bellefonte is exploring whether to stop adding fluoride to its water system after public works employees pointed out damage in the Big Spring pump house caused by the additive.Borough Councilmember Charles Aikens brought up the issue during a work session before last week's council meeting.
"There is erosion caused by fluoride gases in the room of the pump house where we chlorinate and fluoridate the waters," Aikens said. "When the vapors escape, over time, it erodes the glass in the windows."
Borough Manager Ralph Stewart said he was also told that the gases can damage the "thousands and thousands of dollars' worth" of sensitive electronic equipment that operates the water pumps.So far, the idea is simply that. Borough officials are meeting with various regulatory bodies, including the state Department of Environmental Protection, to determine how to proceed. DEP spokesman Dan Spadoni said the department allows each water system to decide whether to fluoridate its water.If a system that is adding fluoride wants to remove it, all that is required, he said, is a minor permit change, made by application to the department.Stewart said he has heard that, but other sources have led him to believe the issue must be put to a referendum.If public sentiment is highly against the change, Stewart said, the borough would investigate other avenues, such as increased ventilation in the pump house to reduce damage.The borough has spent $100,000 -- $50,000 of its own money and $50,000 in grant money -- to repair the pump house this year. Stewart said the borough will spend between $6,500 and $7,000 on fluoride this year.
While DEP does not keep records of how many water systems in the state have stopped fluoridating their water, a spokesman with the department's statewide press office said that in the North Central region, in which Centre County is included, no water systems have moved to eliminate fluoride.The issue of fluoridating public water systems has been controversial since Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first community in the United States to add the agent to its water 60 years ago.An Internet search on fluoride yields a number of nonprofit groups and published articles detailing arguments that fluoride poses more of a public health risk than benefit.On the other hand, the American Dental Association supports public water fluoridation. In a pamphlet called "Fluoridation Facts," the ADA states that "community water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay."
The pamphlet also states that "studies conducted over the past 60 years have indicated that adding fluoride is a safe and effective way of preventing tooth decay in children and adults."Aikens, chairman of the borough's safety committee, said he was looking at the issue purely from a safety standpoint and wasn't looking to jump into the health debate. Workers in the pump house "have been very careful, but (exposure) certainly could have an effect on them long-term," Stewart said.

Professor’s Research Reignites Fluoride-Cancer Correlation Debate With New Research

Douglass claims no link between them, but faces severe criticism

Contributing Writer
A Harvard professor’s testimony to the government on the effects of adding fluoride to tap water has inflamed a 60-year-long debate over the chemical’s safety and its place in the water supply—prompting a University investigation into his work that has garnered nationwide attention.
Chester Douglass, chair of the Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology Department at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine (HSDM), submitted written testimony to the National Research Council last year claiming that there was no significant link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, a rare but deadly form of bone cancer.
Since then, several environmental advocacy groups have questioned the validity of his research, claiming conflict of interest and outright deception.
“His conclusion that there is no link is a lie,” said Tim Kropp, the head toxicologist for the Environmental Working Group, the Washington-based organization that filed the initial ethics complaint with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “He cites work in his references, but directly contradicts it in his write-up.”At the heart of the group’s claims lies the work of one of Douglass’ doctoral students, Elise B. Bassin. Using Douglass’ data, Bassin came up with a different set of conclusions—she found that fluoride makes the risk of osteosarcoma five to seven times higher. Bassin’s work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a gold standard for scientific authenticity. Select portions of her study, however, have been publicized by the Environmental Working Group.
While HSDM is investigating the allegations, several Harvard professors have spoken out in support of their colleague.Myron Allukian Jr., a Harvard associate clinical professor and one of the foremost experts in oral health policy, called the environmental groups’ claims “ridiculous” and “illogical,” saying that Douglass is a world leader in the field and that the results of his seven-year study should be treated with respect.
“The claims don’t hold fluoridated water,” Allukian said. “If I was going to take every study done by a student and say that this should be public policy, then we’d be in very bad shape.” Another group, the Fluoride Action Network, has accused Douglass of having a conflict of interest. Douglass edits the Colgate Oral Care Report, a newsletter subsidized by Colgate Palmolive, which looks at issues affecting oral health. Colgate uses fluoride in its popular toothpaste.
Claiming “ties to a company that profits from Fluoride,” the network asked the National Institute of Health, which has funded Douglass’ work, to remove Douglass from the study, eliminate all other conflicts of interest, and publish his data along with his conclusions.
But R. Bruce Donoff, dean of the HSDM, says that Douglass’ work with the journal “represents no conflict of interest” and has been reviewed by the University. “He edits a newsletter that is part of a learning experience for dentists worldwide,” said Donoff, who expects the investigation to be completed in a month or two.
This is the first time Douglass has faced allegations of misconduct in his roughly 30 years working at Harvard, said Donoff.But other groups are not waiting for the results of Harvard’s investigation. Unions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), longtime opponents of water fluoridization, seized on the allegations against Douglass, writing a letter to the EPA administrator calling for a moratorium on programs that add fluoride to drinking water.
But Allukian, who is also the former chair of the U.S. Surgeon General’s Working Group on Fluoridation and Dental Health, says that the preponderance of evidence favors fluoridation, and that the groups criticizing Douglass’ work are probably fringe groups reminiscent of the movie Dr. Strangelove.
“When this was first implemented, a lot of people thought it was a communist plot,” he said. “The government started fluoridating communities in 1945...and by 1950 saw such a dramatic benefit that the government endorsed it for the entire country.”
Dr. Stephen A. Colchamiro, a professor in Douglass’ department, said that he does not think that any of his colleagues would support ending fluoridization programs.
“Fluoridization has worked so well,” he said. Fluoride strengthens teeth and lowers the decay rate, said Colchamiro.

(USA) Debate Simmering Over Fluoridation Of Drinking Water

Every time you drink a glass of tap water, you get a dose of fluoride. For decades, water departments across the country have added the chemical to make your teeth stronger, but some medical experts believe fluoride might be doing more harm than good. The issue has divided the medical community, with some still believing that adding fluoride to drinking water benefits everyone who drinks it, and others saying fluoride may cause thyroid conditions, bone and joint pain and even cancer.
Daniel Stockin of the Lillie Center has been studying into the affects of fluoride, and he said research shows it causes a variety of health problems. “You should see the people, they are white with anger when we talk with them, and they find out that their weight gain and depression that came from their Thyroid disease may well have in large part been contributed by the fluoride that has been cumulatively building up in their body,” Stockin said.
But Tennessee’s Department of Health Director said that theory on fluoride is simply not true. “There is no scientifically-accepted research that supports any adverse health affects of water fluoridation. And I mean any,” said Dr. Suzanne Hubbard.
Ninety-seven percent of Tennessee's public water systems add fluoride, and a few, like the City of Franklin, Tennessee, are looking into research to see if they should continue the practice. Dr. Hubbard said the proof is in the facts. “More than 60 years of research supports the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation,” she said. But Dan Stockin doesn't buy it. He filters his water to remove as much fluoride as possible, and said he feels there are better ways to get the mineral.
“Doesn't it make more sense that you would just encourage people to use toothpaste and spit it out, or some other way of getting it?” he asked.
Each separate water system decides if fluoride should be added, but adding it is not mandated by the state.
The state is holding a hearing on the fluoride issue next month, and at least one lawmaker feels there are enough questions about the mineral to warrant a closer look.
In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first community in the United States to adjust the fluoride level in its public water system. Since then, federal health officials said some 170 million Americans have benefited from optimally-fluoridated water.
Currently, 67 percent of Americans on public water systems have fluoridated water, and for U.S. communities, every dollar spent on community water fluoridation results in a savings of $38.00 in costs to repair a decayed tooth.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Australian Letter

Study justifies fluoride worry
SINCE 1990 five major epidemiological studies from three countries, US, Britain and France, showed a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated regions than unfluoridated regions.
The University of Yorks Fluoridation Review estimates that up to 48 per cent of children in fluoridated areas have some form of dental fluorosis. To reduce this to the original target of 10 per cent of the population with so-called “mild” dental fluorosis, we would have to terminate fluoridation. It affects me also being a diabetic. Bottle fed babies will have four to six times more than recommended by medical authorities for fluoride supplementation.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Daily Mail Letter

One in a Million

A pdf file from the opposition you may not have read.
"70% of the public think fluoride should be added to our water supplies" Really?

Monday, September 26, 2005

Drinking fluoride water ruined my life (Dated July)

Fluoride has been a controversial addition to our water supply since it was introduced in the 1960s. Jasbir Authi asks whether we should worry about fluoride or put our faith in the experts...
Midlands residents are among the six million people across the country who have a fluoridated water supply.
The Department of Health has long said that putting fluoride – a poisonous by-product of aluminum – in drinking water is a very safe, a costeffective public health measure which helps to prevent tooth decay in children, particularly in socially deprived areas.
Many professional health bodies and organisations including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Institute of Health Education, lend their support to the fluoridation of the water supply.
Indeed, a survey coordinated by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry in spring during 2001/2001 found that children in the West Midlands have the best teeth in the country.
A 2000 survey by MORI found that 71 per cent of people in the West Midlands were in favour of adding fluoride to the water, with 17 per cent against and 12 per cent having no opinion.However, anti-fluoridation groups have long said that low decay rates are due to better health education and there is evidence that fluoride is linked to certain cancers.
According to research conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, boys exposed to fluoride between the age of five and ten, increased their chances of developing osteosarcoma, bone cancer, between the ages of ten and 19.The anti-fluoride camp also argues that it causes other illnesses such as thyroid problems and that the Government should stop plans to fluoridate beyond the Midlands and parts of the north-east.Fluoridation is a politically sensitive subject and MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals include Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, and Conservative leader Michael Howard.In 2003, parliament passed the Water Act which places the decision on whether or not to fluoridise in the hands of strategic health authorities subject to public consultation. The case of former GP Diane Phillips from Keresley End, Coventry shows how fluoride can affect the health of some people.

For more than a decade, doctors repeatedly dismissed Miss Phillips’s complaints of weight gain, mood swings, severe memory loss and muscle-numbing fatigue as depression.Unconvinced and undeterred, Miss Phillips, now 44, set about spending much her money and time trying to pinpoint the cause of her illnesses.After endless medical appointments and tests, she found out that she suffering from a severe thyroid disorder, which was being caused by the fluoride in her water supply.Miss Phillips’s health started deteriorating after she moved to Coventry from nonfluoridated London to take up a new job at Coventry’s Walsgrave Hospital nearly 20 years ago.She said: “I was in excellent health, really active. I weighed nine stones four pounds and was swimming ten0 lengths every morning.”
“Then I started putting on weight. At first I thought it was because I was eating canteen meals and I was a doctor working really hard.
“Then my moods started gradually getting really low, I felt de-motivated and just wanted to sleep all the time.“I just thought it was because I was a doctor working long hours.”
However the weight piled on, she suffered recurrent infections, lost her body hair, and found herself drinking lots of tea to keep warm even in warm weather. She saw numerous doctors who carried out endless tests but all her blood results came back as normal.Miss Phillips said: “It got so bad that I thought I had Alzheimer disease. I would look at people who I had known for ages and I couldn’t remember who they were. “It would take me a day to load the washing machine because I would get so tired. My muscles hurt so much, it took me more than half a hour to get out of bed.”
Miss Phillips was eventually diagnosed with depression, which is linked with thyroid disorders, but she remained ill.Unable to battle on, she left work in Feb 1997.
She re-mortgaged her house and had further tests done, some of which cost £120 a time.A scan of her thyroid gland, which should have had the appearance of a butterfly, revealed that hers had shrunk to the size of a small circle.
In April 2000, Miss Phillips was finally diagnosed with severe thyroid disease but she was unable to get thyroid hormone replacement therapy until a year later.
She discovered that fluoride in her water supply was interfering with the functioning of her thyroid gland.After cutting out drinking water, Miss Phillips has now largely recovered and is looking to return to work in the near future, but her struggle to get treatment has left an emotional scar.She is against the fluoridation of the water supply and believes it should be removed before more people start suffering.

"human toothpastes contain fluoride and can make your pet sick "

Dental disease is the most common health problem affecting dogs and cats. By the time they are 3 years old, 80 percent of dogs and 70 percent of cats suffer from some level of dental disease.
Many factors can influence the development of dental disease, but the accumulation of plaque is the No. 1 reason for the disease. Plaque is a soft, sticky substance and is formed when bacteria attach themselves to the tooth surface. Within days, the plaque mineralizes and forms calculus, or tartar.
Dental disease is a disease of the bone, not of the teeth. Plaque and tartar, gingivitis and bad breath are all signs of dental disease, and left untreated they can cause destruction of the bone surrounding the teeth. This can result in the teeth becoming loose or falling out. Advanced disease of the gums and teeth can be very painful for your pet and may interfere with them being able to eat and drink.
The bacteria present in an unhealthy mouth can cause disease in vital organs. Bacteria from the mouth can enter the bloodstream and damage important organs, especially the liver, kidneys and heart. Recent human studies have shown correlations between dental disease and increased mortality, heart disease and stroke. Human studies have also shown that the presence of dental disease in a diabetic makes it more difficult to achieve proper glucose control.
Dental disease is 100 percent preventable. A good oral hygiene program for your pet involves daily home care and regular professional cleanings by your veterinarian. Daily removal of plaque is the key to keeping your pet free of dental disease; unless your pet's teeth are brushed daily, plaque will begin to accumulate. You can use a soft-bristled human toothbrush or a finger toothbrush designed especially for use in pets.
You should use a toothpaste designed especially for pets, since human toothpastes contain fluoride and can make your pet sick if he or she swallows too much of it. Slide the toothbrush between the inside of your pet's cheek and the teeth and brush the teeth gently using a circular motion. It is more difficult to clean the inside surfaces of the teeth, but just by allowing your pet to chew on the bristles of the toothbrush, you can remove a lot of plaque from them.
How often your individual pet needs a professional veterinary cleaning depends upon the degree and rate of plaque and tartar accumulation. It will also depend upon how diligent you are with the daily brushing of your pet's teeth. You should examine your pet's teeth at least once a month to look for an accumulation of yellow or brown material where the teeth meet the gumline, especially over the cheek teeth and canine teeth.
As soon as you notice plaque or tartar accumulation, it is time for a professional cleaning. The longer you postpone, the gingivitis will eventually lead to bone loss, which is non-reversible.
Many people avoid professional dental cleanings because they are worried about the anesthesia. Anesthesia is necessary when cleaning dogs' and cats' teeth for several reasons. Only with anesthesia is it possible to clean below the gum line, a necessary step in the prevention of dental disease. Anesthesia also keeps your pet comfortable and pain-free during the dental procedure. Finally, when an animal is anesthetized, it is possible to pass a tube into their windpipe, thereby keeping the bacteria from the mouth from entering the respiratory system and causing infection in the lungs.
Of course, there is no such thing as a completely risk-free anesthesia, even in young, healthy animals. In addition to looking at your pet's teeth, your veterinarian will consider the overall health of your animal before recommending a dental cleaning under anesthesia. Depending on the age and health of your pet, your veterinarian may require bloodwork or other tests before the dental procedure in order to make sure the anesthesia is not too risky. Also, all animals under anesthesia are monitored closely to make sure their vital signs remain stable.
Because of these precautions, the health risks associated with untreated dental disease outweigh the risks associated with anesthesia in almost every animal.
Besides regular home and professional care, you can also do a few other things to keep your pet's teeth white and shiny. In general, pets that eat hard food will accumulate less plaque and tartar than animals eating soft food. There are even special diets, such as Hill's t/d ("tooth diet"), that are specifically manufactured to minimize the buildup of plaque.
Encouraging appropriate chewing can also minimize plaque build-up. Treats such as Denta-Bones and Greenies help to mechanically remove plaque from the tooth surface. However, steer clear of chew toys that are harder than the tooth itself, as these can lead to dental fractures. Be especially careful with cow and horse hoofs and nylon bones. In general, if you cannot make in indentation in a chew toy with your thumbnail, it is too hard to give to your pet without risking a broken tooth.


Saturday, September 24, 2005

Good Australian Letter

Fluoride case has 2 sides
IN response to Leo J. Burke, Chiltern, The Border Mail, Wednesday, September 21.
My daughter was raised in Wodonga since birth drinking non-fluoridated water; at the age of 25 she has perfect teeth and has never consumed fluoride tablets.
I dont dispute there are children and adults with dental problems and measures should be put in place to rectify this, however to fluoridate an entire communitys water supply with chemicals affects everyone regardless of age or health.
I recently spent several hours on the internet researching fluoridation taking into consideration the conspiracy theories and research conducted by scientific, medical, dental groups and the booklet recently distributed by the Department of Human Services, one article referred to “A Toxicological Profile” by the US Department of Human Services in April, 1993, which indicated that certain groups in the population may be susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride.
The scientific, medical and dental community worldwide remains divided over the toxicity of fluoride, most people who oppose fluoridation do so out of a genuine concern over the possible effects of fluoride and its compounds on the human body.
On August 5 this year, the US Environmental Protection Agency scientists and unions petitioned Congress for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country pending recommendations from a national science research committee, which are due next year.
I urge readers, do your research, become fully informed, there will always be a difference of opinion; however the 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.
B. RYAN,|Wodonga

Mainly Good Advice Apart From Fluoride

Ignore this headline
by vivienne parry
Kids’ food scare stories are unhelpful: just keep feeding them well
TWO headlines this week will have left parents in despair. First was a claim by the Soil Association that 25 per cent more pesticides were found in samples of school fruit compared with fruit bought from shops; second was news from Canadian researchers who found that children who drink bottled water rather than fluoridated tap water may be missing out on tooth protection.
It’s not fair, is it? There you are thinking that you are doing the right thing and someone tells you that you’ve got it wrong, yet again. Why is it, for example, that your children are toting a bottle of water in their lunch boxes? Because you thought getting them to drink water would be better for them than sending them in with cartons of tooth-rotting squash. Similarly with the schools fruit programme. You thought five a day was good and now someone is telling you that school fruit is full of pesticides.
Neither of these headlines gives the whole picture. Children today have better dental health than their parents and most are likely to reach adulthood without a single cavity. Most will also keep their teeth to old age, unlike their grandparents. This spectacular improvement is due to fluoride which, in those parts of the country that do not have fluoride either added to the water or present naturally, comes mainly from toothpaste. Not so long ago there was a scare that children were having too much fluoride from toothpaste, hence the recommendation that under-sixes use only a pea- sized amount on their brush.
Is water better than squash or cola? You bet. And providing it in a form that’s accessible and pleasant (unlike the school drinking fountain) is entirely sensible.
As for fruit and veg, it’s taken us the best part of a decade to get people to understand that five portions a day is the way to go. How little acquaintance children have with green stuff was shown on Jamie Oliver’s School Dinners programme. Several children didn’t know what an onion looked like.
All but two of the pesticide residues identified in the Soil Association report were below government maximum residue levels, which are set with a wide safety margin and also assume that a substance is consumed at breakfast, lunch, tea and supper, every day, which is clearly not the case in real life. Thus a “maximum” residue is very tiny. The benefits of eating fruit and vegetables far outweigh any possible harm from pesticides, which at these levels has yet to be proved.
So ignore the headlines, and if you can get fruit, veg and water, of any type, into your child, take three house points, a gold star and go to the top of the class immediately.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Mixed Up Article

What's the truth about... tap water
(Filed: 22/09/2005)
Lucie Hoe finds out if bottles are the only way to go
Last week, Health Protection Agency specialists reported that campolybacter, which causes intestinal problems in 42,000 people a year, could "slip through the net" in British water supplies.

With consumption of bottled water exceeding 1.3 billion litres a year, is this the final blow to drinking what comes out of our taps?
What else is lurking in tap water?
Studies have also revealed that male fertility can be affected by female hormones leeched from the contraceptive Pill, which are found in many samples of tap water. Last year, in Scotland alone, there were 28 incidents of contaminated drinking water. In 22 of the most serious failings, Scottish Water customers had to boil their tap water.
Is anything else added?
Campaigners claim that British tap water is treated with too many chemicals, including aluminium sulphate and liquefied chlorine. As water travels through old pipes, it may become contaminated by chemicals or microbes - such as lead and bacteria.
To some, fluoride, added to about 11 per cent of the population's supplies, is also a concern. Although it is proved to ward off some dental problems, too much can make teeth brittle and lead to mottling. Some studies also suggest that it may be linked to conditions such as hip fractures and bone cancers, and affect the thyroid gland.
Best to hit the bottled water, then?
Not necessarily. Research announced this week at the World Dental Congress in Montreal reveals that children who drink too much bottled water are risking tooth decay. Dr Sheldon Rose, a Toronto dentist, blamed a lack of fluoride in bottled water. Jo Tanner, a spokesman for the British Dental Association, says that the association is "pushing for fluoride to be added to more water supplies because of its dental-health benefits", and adds that most bottled waters "contain too little fluoride to be effective in the fight against tooth decay".
A study at the Newcastle School of Dental Sciences, published in the British Dental Journal two years ago, showed that fluoride levels in children who drank from 25 popular brands of bottled water were 26 to 48 per cent lower than those who drank fluoridated tap water. As well as being cheaper, tap water could be better after all.

Australian Letter Tells it Straight

Added sugar the real enemy
FOLLOWING on from excellent articles on fluoridation by M. Edgar (The Border Mail, September 9) and B. Ryan (September 14) the question I pose is: What is the use of putting fluoride into our water system to assist in dental health when food companies are lacing pre-packaged food with sugar, everything from our breakfast cereals to frozen meals and tinned food, and, most alarming, soft drinks?
Most children nowadays prefer the fridge to the tap over the sink to quench a thirst, ask any mother.
We are eating bucket loads of hidden sugar in our food each week, this leads to obesity, diabetes and childhood obesity and, of course, tooth decay.
If governments were serious about dental health they would do something about the amount of sugar in pre-packaged foods and drinks instead of putting fluoride in our water. However, I believe that fluoridation has more to do with multi-national drug companies profit margins than dental hygiene.
Household budgets are stretched to their limits and beyond, a further added cost to their water bill is something they can do without.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

900 ppm Set for Dried Eggs

Environmental groups petition EPA to retract fluoride pesticide tolerances on food

In an unusual convergence of interests, two national environmental organizations joined with the Fluoride Action Network in challenging the safety of new food tolerances issued by the EPA for the fluoride based pesticide, sulfuryl fluoride. This action marks growing concern among mainstream scientists and environmental organizations that total exposure to fluoride, from water, food, and dental uses like toothpaste and rinses, is not safe for vulnerable populations, particularly young children. The challenge was directed at the maximum legal limits for the fluoride-based pesticide in foods, which have been set at levels that dwarf the amount allowed in tap water. In just one case, the EPA is allowing 900 parts per million of fluoride in dried eggs, as opposed to the maximum 4 ppm allowed in tap water. One third of the nation’s eggs are sold and consumed in dried, reconstituted form.

The groups noted that 900 ppm set for dried eggs is extremely close to that used in toothpaste (1,000 ppm), a level that is considered toxic if consumed in greater than pea sized portions. “How can the EPA consider 900 ppm in eggs safe, while the Food and Drug Administration directs parents to call poison control centers if their children consume more than a pea sized portion of toothpaste with fluoride at 1,000 ppm?” asked Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director of FAN. “Unlike toothpaste, eggs are meant to be eaten, not spit out.”The precise FDA required label on toothpastes with fluoride levels of 1000 ppm is: "WARNING: Do not swallow. Use only a pea-sized amount for children under six… If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."

The EPA has set fluoride tolerances for over 200 foodstuffs ranging from 5 ppm in cheese all the way up to 900 ppm in powdered eggs. The groups warn that at the maximum level of fluoride a serving of scrambled eggs made with as few as two egg equivalents could make a child vomit and a four egg omelet could have the same effect on an adult.
The tolerances were requested by Dow AgroSciences, which is expanding its use of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride (trade named ProFume) to fumigate food processing facilities and storage areas. Dow has never conducted crucial safety tests on fluoride residues yet scientific studies point to serious health risks from ingesting even small amounts. A wealth of independent, peer reviewed studies have found adverse effects on children’s developing brains, the male reproductive system, kidneys, and bones.
According to Fluoride Action Network (FAN) researcher Chris Neurath, “It isn't just powdered eggs that will have dangerous levels of fluoride allowed. All processed foods will be allowed 70 ppm fluoride residues. That includes everything from breakfast cereal to hamburger helper to cake mix. Wheat flour is allowed up to 125 ppm. For comparison, the maximum level of fluoride allowed in drinking water is 4 ppm and the natural level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is approximately 0.008 ppm. The EPA argues that most fumigated foods won’t contain the highest allowed levels so there is no need to worry. Yet the USDA’s surveillance program for pesticide residues on foods routinely finds samples bought at stores that exceed the EPA tolerances. The potential for a significant number of acute poisoning cases every year is very real.”
"We are very concerned that total fluoride exposure is not safe for children,” said Richard Wiles, Senior Vice-President of Environmental Working Group (EWG). “EPA is relying on outdated science to support this increase in fluoride exposure, and in our view has not discharged its legal duty to thoroughly consider the effects of fluoride on infants and children, from all routes of exposure, based on a thorough review of the most recent peer-reviewed science.”
Jay Feldman of Beyond Pesticides adds, "This is yet another example of the EPA pesticide division protecting the bottom line of Dow AgroSciences rather than the health of the American public.”
According to Connett, "It is ironic that, while 11 EPA Unions, representing over 7000 professionals, are calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation because of its likely role in causing osteosarcoma in young males, the EPA’s pesticide division has approved the highest fluoride tolerances in US history. With the Centers for Disease Control admitting that 1 in 3 American children have dental fluorosis [the telltale sign of overexposure to fluoride during early childhood] now is not the time to be adding more fluoride to the nation's food supply.”

The appeal by FAN, EWG, & Beyond Pesticides can be accessed at:

The EPA Unions resolution can be found here:


For further information, contact:

Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network
315-379-9200 or 315-229-5853; paul@fluoridealert.org

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Good Idea

Water debate heats up on coast
20/09/2005 7:42:03
The West Coast District Health board is accusing anti-fluoride campaigners of harassing staff.The District Council is holding a referendum to decide whether the town's water supply will be fluoridated. Recently, a billboard which features a skull and crossbone and claims fluoride is a deadly poison, was driven around the grounds of Grey Base Hospital. Chief Executive Officer Kevin Hague says the campaign being waged against fluoridated water is scare-mongering and unethical. He believes that using billboards in such a way, amounts to harassment of the DHB and its employees.

Cavities with fluoride so bottled water is to blame!

Bottled Water Cited as Contributing to Cavity Comeback

By Michael Smith, MedPage Today Staff Writer
Reviewed by Rubeen K. Israni, M.D., Fellow, Renal-Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
September 19, 2005
MedPage Today Action Points
Advise patients that fluoride is an established preventive for tooth decay, especially in young children.
Caution parents that excessive use of bottled water may mean they and their children won't get enough fluoride to build strong teeth and prevent decay. Note that a proper diet and good oral hygiene are other important elements of dental health.
TORONTO, Sept. 19-Tooth decay is making a comeback, fueled by junk food, spurred by social changes, and abetted by an unusual culprit - bottled water.
"I had a three-year-old kid come in the other day," says Toronto dentist Sheldon Rose, D.D.S., "and he had at least two cavities that I could see. I haven't seen that for years."
Like most dentists, Dr. Rose blames the usual suspects - snack foods, soft drinks, lack of parental supervision of food. But bottled water also plays a role, he and others suspect.
"It's not the water that's causing the decay," said Jack Cottrell, D.D.S., president of the Canadian Dental Association (CDA). "It's the lack of fluoride."
The bottled water issue was raised at the World Dental Congress in Montreal, Dr. Cottrell said, as part of a general discussion about what to do about the sudden rise in tooth decay in children.
The American Dental Association says that more and more "health-conscious consumers are sipping bottled water."
Indeed, says the International Bottled Water Association, in 2004 Americans drank nearly 6.8 billion gallons, for a per capita consumption level of 23.8 gallons. That's an 8.6% increase over the previous year, the association says.
The problem is that people are turning away from tap water - which for over two-thirds of Americans contains all of the fluoride that they need to prevent tooth decay - and most bottled waters don't have enough fluoride.
"If bottled water is your main source of drinking water, you could be missing the decay-preventive benefits of fluoride," the ADA says.
(The bottled water association notes that more than 20 U.S. companies do produce fluoridated products; the association has more than 80 bottlers among its members.)
Part of the rise in bottled water is lack of trust in municipal water. In Canada, for instance, a mismanaged town water system in Walkerton, Ontario, was blamed for killing seven people and making 2,000 others ill in 2000.
One result of such occurrences is that people think tap water is "not safe," Dr. Cottrell said, and begin drinking and cooking with bottled water, with detrimental outcomes for their kids' teeth.
Ground zero for fluoridation was the city of Grand Rapids, Mich., which 60 years ago began adding small amounts of fluoride to city water - enough to bring the level to the U.S. Public Health Service recommended level of between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million.
Since then, fluoridation has become recognized as a key intervention. The CDC in December 1999 put fluoridation among the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th Century, along with such things as vaccination and control of infectious diseases.
The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent group appointed by the CDC director, found that - in studies that measured decay rates before and after water fluoridation - the median decrease in tooth decay among children ages four to 17 years was 29.1%.
"We know the effectiveness of fluoride," says the CDA's Dr. Cottrell.
But the chemical is only part of the equation, he adds. "We're seeing changes in the diets of children," says Dr. Cottrell, a combination of more readily available sugary snacks and - because more families are working couples - less parental supervision of the kids' diets.
At the same time, he said, the protective element of fluoride is being removed as more parents switch their kids to bottled water and fruit juices. "We're not getting the advantages of it," he said.
"When I graduated in 1965," said Dr. Rose, "it was a rarity to see a kid with no decay."
Then Toronto's municipal water supply was fluoridated and the rate of cavities plummeted. "It became very unusual to see a kid with any decay," Dr. Rose says.
"But in the past 10 years," he says, "it seems we're going back to the way it used to be."

Monday, September 19, 2005


The British Dental Association cites a 75% drop in rates of tooth decay since fluoride became an ingredient in toothpastes in the '70s.

Click title for full article

Some rethink fluoridation of water

For The Tennessean
Some Tennesseans are rethinking whether it's such a good idea to add fluoride to public drinking water supplies, questioning whether the additive is as dangerous as it is helpful.
City officials in Franklin are reconsidering their city's long-standing practice of putting fluoride in the drinking water to help prevent tooth decay. Last year, a utility in East Tennessee stopped adding it after most of its 30,000 customers said they didn't want it. And a state lawmaker is holding public meetings in Nashville on whether it's a good idea.
Click Title for full article

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Kids Fluoride Overdosed, Gov't Reports

American Children are Fluoride Overdosed -
Formula Fed Infants Most At Risk

New York – September 3, 2005 -- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 1/3 of six to nineteen year-olds are fluoride overdosed and display dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted or crumbly teeth. (A) Over 42% are afflicted if the CDC’s "questionable" category is included. (B)

In 1945, dentists projected water fluoridation would create fluorosis (discolored teeth) in 10% of the population in its mildest form – white spots. But now, according to the CDC, not only do 1/3 of six – nineteen-year-olds suffer from fluoride overdose, but 4% of it is severe fluorosis – yellow or brown stained and/or pitted or crumbly teeth, which actually decays faster than healthy dentition. Fluorosis occurs more often in blacks (42% see table 20) who also have the highest tooth decay rates (43% of 2 – 11 year-olds). (B)

“Since blacks have the most dental fluorosis and the most cavities, if anything, this report shows fluoride is an ineffective cavity fighter,” says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.
Full press release click heading

Friday, September 16, 2005


The third main type of mouthwash contains fluoride. Here, the evidence base is more complete, at least for those under 16. We know for certain that fluoride mouthwashes stop teeth falling out. But we also know that they don't do it very much. Pooled data from 34 different studies and almost 15,000 children shows that those at low risk of tooth decay avoid an average of one filling in two decades - and anyone motivated enough to swill for that long is already likely to be at low risk. Best guess is the effects are similar for adults, but no one knows for sure.
Full article in Guardian (click Link)

Fight against downunder

Fri, Sep 16, 2005

Fluoride sets off alarm bells
I RECENTLY received in the mail a booklet from the Department of Human Services via North East Water on the virtues of fluoride in our water.
This booklet let me know that fluoride helped with 45 per cent less decay in baby teeth, this leaves 55 per cent it didnt help, and in 12-year-olds 38 per cent of adult teeth had less decay, this leaves a total of 62 per cent, it appears that the odds are still against it as the help is still not in the majority.

The booklet admits young children can have too much fluoride and they should be discouraged from swallowing toothpaste. Children under two years old should not use toothpaste and between the ages of two and six should only use low fluoride toothpaste. It also advises the careful use of toothpaste and fluoride tablets even in areas without fluoridation. All these numbers only got my alarm bells ringing this appears to be a dangerous chemical and Im not convinced that it should be administered en masse. On page 13 of the booklet Prof John Harris of the University of Manchester stated “We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage and costs of failure to fluoridate on the community at large”.
What about my rights not to have fluoride, who will pay if I or any other member of the community has an allergic reaction to fluoride? If any one needs fluoride it can be prescribed for them after a proper medical check and be given free of charge but dont force me to take a medicine or chemical I dont need or want.


Wednesday, September 14, 2005

We could do with somebody like him

Bellingham resident Rainy Fackler-Adams today filed a legal action against the proposed fluoride initiative due to tax/cost issues and the proposed fluoride chemical compond being proposed to be used for fluoridation.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Good letter from Anthony

Long Awaited DoH Consultation Guidence for SHA's

Monday, September 12, 2005

Sensible Dentist

Open Letter on Fluoridation

I have been a dentist for almost 25 years. Upon my graduation from dental school, I, like most of my colleagues, was an avid supporter of water fluoridation. I supported fluoridation because organizations like the American Dental Association endorsed it as a “safe and effective” means of preventing tooth decay in children. I assumed that they had commissioned studies to offer proof of this claim. To my surprise, this turned out to be a totally erroneous assumption on my part.

It has been approximately 10 years since the city of Tacoma began to fluoridate its water. I have examined children and adults drinking this water during that time. What I have seen has made me question the use of fluoride. I have noticed no discernible decrease in decay in children or adults. My practice has not noticed a decrease in the number of fillings that I am placing because of decay. But what I have noticed is that there has been an increase in fluorosis in children, white or brown spots on the teeth indicating that children are being overdosed with fluoride. These fluorosed teeth were actually more susceptible to decay. This prompted me to begin studying the issue. What I found was very little scientific literature supporting that fluoride decreases tooth decay, let alone research that proved it was safe. On the other hand, I found a great deal of scientific literature that raised some red flags in my mind regarding its safety.

While most dentists are proponents of water fluoridation, there are many dentists and physicians who do not support water fluoridation. The majority of naturopathic physicians and chiropractors do not support water fluoridation. The dentists that do support water fluoridation do so based on information they have received from local and national dental organizations such as the Washington State Dental Association and the American Dental Association. These dentists are unaware of the controversy surrounding the issue because the ADA says there is no controversy. These dentists are unaware of the opposing scientific views because the ADA says it is all “junk science”. These dentists are also unaware that the chemical put in drinking water is not sodium fluoride but hydrofluorosilicic acid, a toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Pure reagent grade sodium fluoride is no longer used because it is too expensive.......................

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Canada: Dentists, health unit revive fluoridation issue

By Bryan Meadows - The Chronicle-Journal
September 10, 2005
To add or not to add fluoride — that is the question.

With the help of four dentist offices in Dryden, the Northwestern Health Unit launched a petition this week asking city council to authorize a plebiscite during the 2006 municipal election.

The ballot would ask voters whether fluoride should be added to the municipal water supply to help prevent tooth decay.

The health unit has until next September to get 10 per cent of the city’s population to sign the petition so that the proposal can become a question on the November 2006 ballot, dental consultant Dr. Peter Cooney told The Chronicle-Journal.

Council has rejected the fluoride option twice since 2003. They also rejected an election plebiscite on the issue.

Those decisions came following presentations by Cooney, who explained that most scientific studies support fluoridation, as do many health organizations.

The city’s fluoridation unit broke down in 2001 and wasn’t reactivated due to safety concerns for staff who handled the chemical and the cost of a new system. Before that, fluoride was added to city’s water for more than 40 years.

Mayor Anne Krassilowsky has said “there is so much evidence for and against” fluoridation.

Cooney said the Northwestern Health Unit has noticed an increase in tooth decay among school children in the city since the city quit adding fluoride to the water.

As for concerns about handling the chemical, health unit spokesman Bill Limerick said he considers that “a non-issue.”

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Have you signed this Petition to stop fluoridation

Changed towns but no escape in Australia

Sat, Sep 10, 2005
Fluoride cause of osteoporosis
I AM concerned about the suggestion that fluoride should be added to the water supply. Fluoride is a by-product of the aluminium smelting process and is a deadly poison. It is an extremely difficult commodity to dispose of and putting it in our water supply is hardly a satisfactory answer. In nature, fluoride bonds with calcium and where fluoride occurs naturally, fortunately, calcium is abundant. The result is that the water has no effect on those who drink it. The significant point is that fluoride not only bonds with teeth but with any calcium in the body. Bones are the most common recipients which probably is responsible for the increased occurrence of osteoporosis in the older population. In point of fact, fluoridation does not prevent caries but it does delay the onset by about 18 months. By far the best treatment to delay the onset of caries is good oral hygiene and nourishment.

That usually means a reduction in sweet foods since sugar is the main culprit in tooth decay. Only the dentist can provide a satisfactory fluoride treatment but of course there is sufficient fluoride in most tooth paste. Having moved from Melbourne to Wodonga to escape fluoridation, I would hate to think that the cost and upheaval has all been in vain.

I would recommend that all parties that advocate fluoridation should read the excellent book Fluoridation Poison on Tap by Glen Walker. Incidentally, what would we achieve by watering our gardens and washing our cars with fluoridated water?

I cannot believe that industry would benefit either. Most of the expense of the fluoridation of our water supply would go straight down the drain.


Wodonga West

Friday, September 09, 2005

Information for James

This URL is for a web page on Andover's MP who is for fluoridation


  • Young

  • This is from Stella about the bioavailabilty of fluoride proving to her it was safe and effective.

    "Most significantly, in my view, at the end of June this year the University of Newcastle announced the results of its study comparing the bioavailability of fluoride in naturally and artificially fluoridated water. The conclusions of the study, that there appears to be no significant difference in the bioavailability of fluoride from drinking waters in which the fluoride is present at concentrations close to one part per million, either naturally or added artificially, or whether the waters are hard or soft, match the outcome predicted by theoretical chemistry. The results of this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation.
    _Stella Saunders
    Consultant in Dental Public Health"

    I sent this letter (below)I got from Prof S but it made no difference to her faith in fluoride.
    I've just looked for the bioavailability web page but can't find it they may have taken it down.

    My observations on the attached letter from the director of Public health is as follows:

    1) The MRC review was not systematic and the only reason it included additional studies not included in the York review was because they lowered the threshold and considered studies which the York team deemed to poor methodologically. This means that any conclusions from this are likely to be weaker and have less of a basis than the York review - indeed it was not even part of the MRC's terms of reference to do a review and it seems that it was just taken as an opportunity by the dental establishment to try and change the results.

    2) The Newcastle bio-availability study is being referred to. Two things about that:

    a) it was about comparing uptake of artificial and naturally occurring fluoride. It was not a study about effects or safety. Therefore to say that "The results of
    this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation." is a complete misrepresentation of the research.

    b) more importantly however, this study has come under considerable criticism. I have read it and am very concerned about the evidence of poor design and manipulation of data: the study was very small and only powered to find over a 30% difference in bioavailability (which is huge). In fact it did find (using one of the outcome measures a statistically significant increase in uptake from artificial fluoride but they then removed one of the 20 datapoints (saying it was an outlier!) and the result was no longer statistically significant. This is very dubious practice. Essentially the study shows nothing as it is too small but suggests there is a difference in uptake and possible an interaction with soft water. The conclusions of the report stress the caution that must be used in interpreting their results but this is not in the summary of the report. All very dodgy stuff which does not lend support to arguments for fluoridation of water in my view.

    I wonder if the Director of Public health is getting the script written for her by others, or perhaps she has not read the study!

    I've just looked for the bioavailability web page but can't find it they may have taken it down.

    Sir John's Question and Minister's Answer

    Water Fluoridation
    Sir John Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the report of the World Health Organisation in 2002 concerning the findings of the US National Toxicology Programme relating to rates of osteosarcoma among young males living in fluoridated areas. [7280]

    Caroline Flint: We are aware that, on 6 June, a research organisation in the United States, the Environmental Working Group, published a press release asking the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health to list fluoride in tap water in its report on carcinogens, "based on its ability to cause a rare form of childhood bone cancer, osteosarcoma". The request refers to a doctoral thesis completed in 2001 by a student at Harvard School of Dental Medicine.

    The systematic review of water fluoridation undertaken by the University of York identified over 3,000 reports of research projects on fluoridation of which 735 met their criteria for inclusion in their study. The researchers did not find any evidence of an association between water fluoridation and bone cancer, but we are not complacent and are committed to strengthening the evidence base. In this context, we have been informed by the oral health division of the Centers for Disease Control that the author of the thesis has invited them to review her findings as part of the peer review process conducted before a research study is published. We have asked to be kept informed.

  • Fluoride in Food

  • They seem to be revising this as it is now in a draft

    Thursday, September 08, 2005

    Why the EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation

    By Dr. J. William Hirzy, 9/7/2005 10:47:21 AM
    The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies.

    Wednesday, September 07, 2005

    New York "village" video as well

    Fluoride controversy
    9/6/2005 10:30 PM
    By: Sarah Buynovsky, News 10 Now Web Staff

    Roy Crandall refuses to drink water with fluoride in it.

    "I said at one time anyone that bought bottled water was crazy because the Homer water was good, but then I started reading about fluoride and decided I didn't want any part of the fluoride," he said.

    Sunday, September 04, 2005

    'The reason poorer children have worse teeth is a poorer diet,'

    Decay bites ever deeper into poor children's teeth

    Survey shows growing north-south gap in dental health

    Anushka Asthana
    Sunday September 4, 2005
    The Observer

    Remarkable new statistics have revealed a widening gap in the levels of decay in children's teeth in the poorest and richest parts of Britain.
    Five-year-olds in some of the poorest parts of the country, such as Merthyr in Wales, North Kirklees in Yorkshire, and Argyll and Clyde in west Scotland, have an average of almost four teeth decayed, missing or filled, while their counterparts in Maidstone Weald in Kent, and Suffolk Coastal, near Felixstowe, have an average of under 0.5.

    The study, by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry, reveals that areas with the lowest rates of tooth decay are exclusively from the south of England and the Midlands. The worst areas are restricted to parts of Wales, Scotland and the north of England.

    Glasgow and Lanarkshire in Scotland; Preston, Bolton, and Blackburn in Lancashire; Knowsley in Merseyside and Bradford in West Yorkshire are all in the bottom 10, each with an average of more than three decayed teeth per child.

    The news comes as the government prepares to launch a dental health taskforce in child oral health that will focus on why disease levels are higher among underprivileged groups at home and abroad. It will sign up to the initiative, which is backed by the World Health Organisation and more than 40 chief dental officers, tomorrow.

    A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said: 'We recognise there is a significant challenge to reduce the gap between the health of people living in the most disadvantaged areas, compared to the rest of the country. This will provide valuable information for developing the government's long-term health inequalities strategy.'

    She added that the problem was not restricted to children, pointing to the fact that adults in the north were twice as likely to have no teeth as those in the south.

    England's chief dental officer, Professor Raman Bedi, said the taskforce was necessary because good oral health was 'fundamental' to overall health. Anousheh Alavi , a specialist dentist speaking on behalf of Colgate, which backed the survey, said that the solution was to educate parents: 'This study looked at just under 170,000 children. If we haven't the resources to repair the damage, we must look at prevention. We could educate every expectant mother. As soon as children have milk teeth they must have fluoride and get into a brushing routine. The other key thing is [to cut out] sugary snacks in between meals.'

    Sugar policy will be top of the agenda tomorrow at Health Through Oral Health, a University College London conference that will bring together the country's leading experts to discuss what is driving these inequalities.

    'The reason poorer children have worse teeth is a poorer diet,' said Aubrey Sheiham, professor of dental public health, UCL. 'We know if you change the taste threshold of a child, it stays with them for life. The question is how is the government going to confront the food industry?'

    Paul Batchelor, an honorary senior lecturer in dental public health at UCL and national research co-ordinator of the faculty of General Dental Practice, said that the way to tackle the problem was not to focus on just the poorest areas but to help everyone: 'The government has ignored dental services for a long time; they are trying to do things now, but are tinkering around too late.'

    Friday, September 02, 2005

    Fluoride Milk in Doncaster

    EXCLUSIVE by Deborah Wain

    SCHOOL milk with added fluoride is to be introduced for the first time in Doncaster - under a controversial project to halt tooth decay in children.

    Parents of pupils at Belle Vue's St Peter's Roman Catholic Primary School are expected to be able to sign up for their youngsters to be given daily fluoridated milk from the start of the new term.
    Governors at seven other local primary schools are currently deciding whether to follow suit in a move branded a "knee jerk reaction" by fluroride's opponents.
    Doncaster Council has given approval for trial schemes at eight primary schools in the borough's New Deal for Communities area, which includes Hexthorpe, Balby Bridge and Hyde Park.
    Children at these schools have some of the highest levels of tooth decay in the borough - between twice and three and a half times the government target for five-year-olds in England in 2003.
    Experts from Sheffield University will work with primary care trust staff to monitor the effects of the scheme over the next five years.
    Nigel Thomas, director of dental public health, said: "Fluoridated school milk is an established method of preventing dental decay in children and the pilot part of the scheme is to assess the uptake and economic benefit of it in Doncaster schools.
    "Milk fluoridation has been chosen by the PCTs and the borough council because it gives parents an individual choice for their child as to whether they wish their children to benefit or not.
    "It also enables resources to be directed at those areas which need help the most. The level of dental decay in five-year-old children in Doncaster has not improved in recent years and is high in comparison with surrounding areas."
    He said children whose parents opted for them not to take part in the scheme would receive ordinary school milk as usual.
    However Rick Rolt, spokesman for the Green Party in Doncaster, said there were still question marks over the effectiveness of fluoride and that authorities should focus on promoting healthier eating.
    He commented: "It seems crazy that we poison our children with rubbish, processed foods and sugary drinks then have to add another chemical to the cocktail to try to halt the damage.
    "So many things the council does is about knee-jerk reaction and not about addressing the cause of the problem."
    Fluoridated milk has been supplied to schools in some parts of the country since 1993 with 30,000 youngsters receiving it daily in the North West. In South Yorkshire, 37 schools in Sheffield, 18 and Barnsley and one in Rotherham have so far introduced fluoridated milk.

    01 September 2005

    Another account of the EPA call to Congress

    Occupational Safety & Health Daily
    Volume: 2005 Number: 169
    September 01, 2005
    EPA Unions Call on Agency, Congress To Recognize Carcinogenicity of Fluoride

    Unions representing Environmental Protection Agency employees and other public health professionals have asked Congress to impose a nationwide moratorium on drinking water flouridation programs and called on EPA to set a goal of reducing the amount of fluoride in drinking water based on evidence it is associated with cancer.

    The request, set forth in letters to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and to House and Senate committees released by the unions Aug. 30, is predicated on newly discovered Harvard research that links fluoride to a type of bone cancer, William Hirzy, vice president of Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), told BNA. The letters were dated Aug. 5.

    The unions' request is based on "startling and disturbing new information" that a Harvard University study shows a connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer that afflicts young boys, according to the letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

    The letter to Johnson called on EPA to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking setting a nonenforceable public health goal of zero for fluoride in drinking water. The purpose of the advance notice is to notify the public of the research linking fluoride to cancer, Hirzy said.

    The unions also asked EPA's Office of Criminal Enforcement to investigate why the Harvard research showing the link between fluoride and cancer remained hidden from EPA for four years.

    Thursday, September 01, 2005

    NPWA Letter

    Dear Mr Robinson, Customer
    Relations Manager
    Head of Customer Relations Review Team
    Severn Trent Water

    Re: 17 August 2005 Response to Mrs. Joy Warren account Number 1211201547 -fluoridation

    Mrs. Warren shared your response to her with National Pure Water Association and I was delegated to contact you. In reviewing the correspondence, most of the explanations were the general puerile public relations diatribe we have come to expect from a water company PR department. However, there were several statements that could be construed as fraudulent misrepresentation - if not blatant lies.

    In the second item (2) of your response, you stated:
    ". . . IPCS/WHO, state that the safe concentration [offluoride] for sensitive species such as rainbow and brown trout are significantly higher, at approximately 5.1 and 7.5 respectively."

    Here is the full text from which you derived your answer: you omitted "estimated" and also "lethal concentrations".

    "Twenty-day LC50s for rainbow trout ranged from 2.7 to 4.7 mg fluoride/litre in static renewal tests. "Safe concentrations" (infinite hours LC0.01s) have been estimated for rainbow trout and brown trout (Salmo trutta) at 5.1 and 7.5 mg fluoride/litre, respectively. At concentrations of >3.2 (effluent) or >3.6 (sodium fluoride) mg fluoride/litre, the hatching of catla (Catla catla) fish eggs was delayed by 1-2 h. "

    That one was only spun a little - but it was still misinformation on your part, as the "safe concentration" was an "estimate" not a concrete scientific conclusion.

    More flagrant fabrications are as follows.
    #3 - "Silico Fluorides are by no means a waste product. No-one would ever consider using waste products anywhere near potable water. Silicofluorides are a product in their own right manufactured to exacting standards and to a very high purity. All the fluoride products used within the water industry are from recognised sources and conform to BSEN: 12175."

    Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Administrator for Water, USEPA, 1983, wrote: "...in regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a LONG-STANDING problem. By recovering byproduct fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them."

    In fact, there are only two sources of bulk hexafluorosilicic acid. The first and most common source is derived from pollution scrubbing operations during the manufacture of phosphate fertilisers, and the second is pollution "scrubber liquor" from the manufacturing of hydrogen fluoride.
    See: "Sodium Hexafluorosilicate [CASRN16893-85-9] and Fluorosilicic Acid
    [CASRN16961-83-4], Review of Toxicological Literature, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, USCDC, 2001-
    /ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf .

    As for the BSEN, it is irrelevant to product safety. The UK water industry has obtained a BSEN for sewage sludge, and boasts that British sewage sludge is the finest in all of Europe. You can get a BSEN for almost anything. A BSEN for hexafluorosilicic acid only sets the parameters for MCLs of contaminants.

    Next, you will be telling me that 'British Sewage Sludge' is made to "exacting standards". I don't think you are going to convince anyone to sprinkle dessicated sewage sludge on their salads as a condiment. Severn Trent can't sell that one even if they hire Saatchi & Saatchi and invest millions in an ad campaign.

    NPWA has heard every conceivable, feeble fabrication regarding the production of Hexafluorosilicic acid, from people like yourself.

    1. "Product recovery unit" (2000): The US CDC and British Fluoridation Society were attempting to sanitise the product, and fabricated that one. It was thought up by Tom Reeves, National Fluoridation Engineer, US CDC [retired]. I personally did an extensive patent search for a "product recovery unit" - there was none, as my industry contacts confirmed beforehand, and neither the British Fluoridation Society nor the US CDC could produce documentation for a "product recovery unit."

    2. Now you people are saying that the product is "purified". This is a real fabrication, worthy of a nine year old child. Again I did a patent search and found no applications for a hexafluorosilicic acid purification process. In fact, hexafluorosilicic is virtually impossible to purify in a bulk process. Consequently, if it were possible to purify the acid, it would be cost prohibitive for use in the water treatment process.

    3. 'It's mined from special fluoride mines containing 99.0% pure fluoride.'

    4. 'Fluoride ions extracted from fluoride-containing rocks.'

    5. 'It's silicofluoride gas bubbled-up through pristine water.'

    The next one I expect out of a water company PR department is that 'it's tooth fairy dust sprinkled into crystal clear, magic spring water and the elves bring it to the plant every morning in shiny gold buckets.' Also see: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/bfs_letters.htm

    The reason hexafluorosilicic acid is used for fluoridation is that it is
    CHEAP (See: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/Public_comment.html).

    In light of your above response to Mrs. Warren regarding the source of hexafluorosilicic acid, NPWA must demand that you supply us with all the details of manufacturing, including the source of the product used by Severn Trent, and current analyses from an independent certification laboratory - not the Severn Trent laboratories.

    #6. - You stated that Severn Trent's tap water is of "unsurpassed quality". That is quite a claim and NPWA will also demand that you qualify that statement. Severn Trent's product is Tap Water - the quality might be good for tap water, but stating that the water is of "unsurpassed quality" is a blatant lie.

    NPWA also suggests that the fact that Severn Trent Laboratories does water quality testing for Severn Trent tap water is a direct conflict of interests. It leads us to question the credibility of any claims of "unsurpassed quality".

    NPWA wishes to see test results from an independent certifying laboratory,such as National Sanitation Foundation International, to verify Severn Trent's claims of "unsurpassed quality" .

    With regards to hexafluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate drinking water,NPWA strongly suggests that Severn Trent stop lying to its customers about the manufacturing process.

    NPWA would also suggest, again, that Severn Trent PR people read http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/
    Fluorosilicates.pdf before attempting to fabricate another 'tooth fairy' tale about the nature of hexafluorosilicic to placate customers.

    Severn Trent could find itself in court for disseminating fraudulent information (See: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/pollution.htm.

    Disseminating such misinformation reflects on the credibility of Severn Trent.


    George Glasser
    Water Quality Advisor/Press Officer
    National Pure Water Association

    Lettter from Liz Vaughan to DoH

    Jerry Read
    Department of Health
    325 Richmond House,
    79 Whitehall,
    London SW1A 2N

    Open Letter for distribution

    Dear Mr Read:

    Re: Costs of implement drinking water fluoridation and impact on NHS services.

    Member councils of UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF) have expressed concern over the costs of implementing drinking water fluoridation. In particular they fear the impact it will have on SHA budgets, since it is the SHAs that will be footing the bill.

    The British Fluoridation Society website states: "In the UK the total cost of water fluoridation is borne by the NHS." Lord Warner was quoted in Hansard: 08 March 2005 Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005: "As fluoridation is a public health measure, the strategic health authorities pay the companies the full
    cost of fluoridation."
    UKCAF member councils are aware that most SHAs are currently operating in the red and can barely afford to maintain current levels of medical services, also that these SHAs are under pressure to balance their books, causing further contraction and threats to services.
    In these circumstances, it seems clear that water fluoridation could only be implemented at the expense of essential medical services, such as life saving cancer drugs, heart surgery, transplants, MRSA infection control, etc.

    Our enquiries regarding the costs of fluoridation, made to dental health officers and SHAs, have exposed the fact that no one in a decision-making capacity has any idea of the overall price tag - yet they appear eager to initiate public consultations, after which water companies will be obliged by law to implement fluoridation. This, surely, is putting the cart before the horse? Devoting NHS monies to promote "consultations", when the people promoting fluoridation have no idea if they can afford to implement the scheme, is financial irresponsibility of the highest order.

    As far as on-going running costs are concerned, we have heard the estimate of £0.50 per person per year bandied about for many years. We are also aware that the estimated start-up costs for fluoridating London were £22M in 2003. Our investigations indicate that the initial start-up costs can run between £500K - £1.0M+ per fluoridation facility. These estimates do not include:
    1. water company feasibility studies,

    2. water company oversight of design, engineering and construction of
    these facilities,

    3. ongoing maintenance and running costs; and

    4. neither do they include the - no doubt considerable - legal costs which
    would inevitably be incurred when contracts have to be agreed between
    several SHAs, and/or water companies.

    For instance, the East Yorkshire SHA (which is making noises about fluoridation) also covers North Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire. However, while all of Yorkshire is served by Yorkshire Water, North Lincolnshire is served by Anglian Water and Severn Trent. Yorkshire Water has 85 water treatment plants on an interconnected grid
    system - fluoridate one area and you have to fluoridate all of Yorkshire; therefore, fluoridation requires the simultaneous co-operation of all three strategic health authorities in Yorkshire - to begin with.
    In order to fluoridate, the East Yorkshire SHA has to choreograph consultations, not only with the SHAs in West and South Yorkshire, but also with the Lincolnshire SHA, which would be receiving fluoridated water from Anglian Water, and Nottinghamshire SHA. Now we have four SHAs involved.

    Severn Trent handles all of Nottinghamshire's water, but also extends further South into other SHAs' territories. So for a fluoridation scheme to work in East Yorkshire, it will involve the co-ordinated efforts of at least four SHAs and three water companies - probably more.

    In the absence of a firm quotation, our best estimate of the start-up costs of fluoridating Yorkshire alone is about £85M, which will have to come out of the NHS budget. The scheme will take from 3 - 5 years to implement - barring unforeseen engineering problems which may arise. Supposing this cost is shared equally between them, the bottom line cost to each of Yorkshire's three SHAs will be about £28M.

    Such a sum would make significant inroads into health budgets which are already severely stretched. UKCAF member councils do not see how it could be met without cutting services.

    The British Fluoridation Society and "fluoride information.com" at Manchester University both state that "Government grants" will be forthcoming to help pay for fluoridation. We have found no mention of this, either in the Water Act 2003, or in Hansard.
    Having legitimate concerns about the implications for health service provision, we wish to raise the following questions:
    1. Does DoH intend reimbursing SHAs the costs of implementing
    fluoridation, so the schemes do not come at the cost of cuts in essential medical services?
    2. If so, will this be 'new money' allocated to DoH specifically to pay for
    3. If not, how much money from existing budgets has been earmarked for that purpose?
    4. Fluoridation of drinking water has the perceived benefit, after five years, of inhibiting one cavity on one surface of on one tooth (molars have five surfaces and the front teeth have four surfaces) - but only provided that a dental hygiene education program is simultaneously implemented (at further cost).

    During those five years, people continue to suffer from toothaches - many are already unable to find a dentist. How much money is fluoridation going to drain from the already understaffed and under-funded NHS dental service?
    We appreciate your attention and response to our concerns.

    Yours sincerely
    Liz Vaughan, Cllr.
    Information Officer
    UK Councils Against Fluoridation
    Croft End
    Lowick Bridge
    LA12 8EE