Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

‎10-16-2018 05:07 PM

Dr. Chuck,

A couple good responses to your good questions on "legal" and "NSF."

I would agree with you, most US court cases have ruled in favor of fluoridation, but not all.  And certainly international courts have not been as good to fluoridation.  Few have wrestled and ruled on the science.

Those two issues of (A) courts and (B) NSF are too big to cover here, but I will add to other posts.

(A)    Courts generally support governments, so those harmed with excess fluoride have a higher standard to gain.    (Courts took years to rule against tobacco, long after science was firm.)

1.   As you may know, like a scientific study, courts try to focus on one variable and often it ends up to be a war of court terms rather than the benefits and risks of fluoride.  Only one case I know of, considered the science and that court ruled in favor of the science which is opposed to humans ingesting more fluoride. . . fluoridation.  On appeal the science was not reviewed.

2.   The EPA approved SF for a post-harvest fumigant with residual concentrations up to, for example, dried egg of 900 ppm, similar to toothpaste.  Most dried egg is fed to children and seniors in schools and retirement homes. . . the most vulnerable.  On petition, an administrative judge ruled against the EPA on all counts.  Seeing the serious loss, Dow Agro went around the EPA and had Congress approve SF as a post-harvest fumigant in the Farm Bill.  Doesn't mean SF is safe, just means money makes laws.  The politicians I talked to did not realize what they had signed.

3.   The court is currently reviewing fluoride in a TSCA suite.  We shall see how that plays out in a year or so.   The neurotoxicity of fluoride is central.

(B)  Regarding NSF.   Do not trust NSF to evaluate the safety or efficacy of fluoride ingestion.

1.  NSF is a private company and documentation is not available to the public.  We don't know how "honest" NSF presents their data.  And what we know is a concern.

2.  NSF had a rule that permitted contaminants in a product, limiting the contaminant to 10% of the EPA's MCL added to the water.   Sounds simple enough.  10% of EPA's 4 mg/L MCL for fluoride would be 0.4 ppm.   NSF would therefore permit fluoridation up to 0.4 ppm.  

So I called NSF and asked them about the rule.  They agreed and explained it to me as I have to you.  I then asked, "why NSF permitted fluoridation to 1.2 ppm when 10% of 4 ppm MCL is 0.4 mg/L?"   Long pause.  Finally, NSF said they would call me back and did not.  I called a week later and asked again.  The person I talked to said the 10% applies to contaminants in the product, not the product itself.

I asked, "if we called fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by a different name such as lead or silicate or arsenic, would the dilution of the product be limited to 0.4 ppm of fluoride?"  NSF responded, "well yes."  

NSF makes no sense.  Change the name and the product cannot be added to the water at current concentrations?   Nothing about a name change will change the toxicity of the product.

Since then, NSF has made an exeption to fluoride.    And exceptions for fluoride are what we see with all agencies and fluoridationists, such as the EPA, CDC, FDA, and others.  The rules are written and changed not based on health and safety, but on politics and money.   When it comes to fluoride, NSF protects the fluoride manufacturers and those purchasing the fluoride.   Their decision is not based on science or health.  Their data is not open for public review.  

Do NOT rely on NSF for the health and safety of fluoridation.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH