Fluoride and Fish

While the early years of the anti-fluoridation movement were dominated by conservative voices, anti-fluoridationists can now be found across the political spectrum. In Portland, OR (which is set to vote on fluoridation this month) the opposition is fairly diverse, coming from both the left, and the right, and well as from some more politically unaffiliated voices. Aside from the usual arguments about “health freedom”, a traditionally right-wing movement that still finds much support in the vegan community, activists in Portland have also been pushing the environmental argument fairly hard, with their central concern being the health of the Columbia River and the salmon populations it supports. Activists have even enlisted the support of some smaller environmental organizations such as the Oregon Sierra Club’s Columbia Group and Columbia Riverkeeper giving their claims an air of credibility.

While I certainly can appreciate a more bio-centric approach to the issue, I still find the arguments put forward by the fluoridation opponents to be unconvincing. To support their claim anti-fluoridationists point to a 1989 study by David M. Damkaer and Douglas B. Dey published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management that purports to find a safety threshold for salmon exposed to concentrations of fluoride as low as 0.2 ppm. But on closer inspection this study is problematic and does not offer any conclusive evidence. A more recent review from the British Columbia Environmental Protection Division suggested a conservative safety threshold twice that of Damkaer and Dey (0.4ppm). But what does this mean in the context of water fluoridation? How much will the fluoridation of Portland’s public water raise levels in the Columbia River?

Some fluoridation opponents have noted that the expected concentration of fluoride added to Portland’s public water supply will be nearly four times the limit proposed by Damkaer and Dey, and that sewage effluent can exceed this limit even further. However Portland will not be directly fluoridating the Columbia River and despite concerns about run-off, this source is insignificant and is highly diluted by the time it makes it into the Columbia. Nor will Portland simply discharge untreated sewage into the river, that in itself would be a major environmental concern. Waste water is first treated, where around half of the fluoride content may be removed. From there waste water will then be diluted to less than 0.2 ppm fluoride in the mixing zone before heading downstream and diffusing further. A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on the work of John Osterman accounting for flow rate of the Columbia, waste water flow rate, and background fluoride levels shows no more than a 0.00047 ppm change in fluoride concentrations in the river as a result of fluoridation. This is well below any dangerous level for salmon or their prey and would be undetectable against background fluoride levels. A 2004 review of the literature by Howard F. Pollick published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health offers further support for the pro-fluoridation side, concluding, “[t]here appears to be no concern about the environmental aspects of water fluoridation among those experts who have investigated the matter”.

Further Reading:

Environmental Effects of Fluoridation: City Club of Portland

Why Salmon Have Nothing to Fear from Fluoridation by carmackart

How Some on the Right use Fluoride to Co-opt the Left by carmackart

You Can’t Handle the Tooth: Why the far right and left have come together to defeat fluoride. By Marty Smith

Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment.

Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department Fluoridation Resolution Environmental Checklist

City of Port Angeles Municipal Water Fluoridation Environmental Checklist

About these ads

Tags: ,

36 Responses to “Fluoride and Fish”

  1. Put name here Says:

    How again is the waste fluoride that is treated ‘removed’ when the only way to do it is through reverse osmosis or distillation? Are you aware of how expensive it is to remove fluoride? Treating sewage is a completely different process. Fluoride particles are too small to be treated with standard sewage treatment.

    On a side note, perhaps City government can pay for removal for those that are seriously affected by fluoride. It is the only right thing to do considering that it is so hard to remove and it is forced on unwilling residents without the means to get rid of it if you are poor or live in an apartment (no filters work properly on a shower spigot). When it comes to a person’s body, no one should ever force an unwanted and unneeded medication. That is the same as forcing everyone to eat meat with no alternative. I in fact know people who are severely allergic to meat protein and will get severely sick if made to eat it. Whenever you have a draconian rule that forces people’s bodies to be dictated that way, you have a severe corruption of power.

    I think residents should sue the City to provide removal for sensitive individuals affected by fluoride. There are more than you know.

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      the only way to do it is through reverse osmosis or distillation

      Nope

      Effluents from areas with fluoridation have limited influence on the final fluoride level in the fresh water recipient because, in addition to removal by biological processes, large amounts are precipitated by aluminium, iron and calcium salts during chemical treatment of sewage.

      SINGER, L. & ARMSTRONG, W.D.Fluoride in treated sewage and in rain and snow.
      Archivesof environmental health,32:21–33 (1977).

      source: WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000

      moving on…

      I think residents should sue the City to provide removal for sensitive individuals affected by fluoride. There are more than you know.

      I don’t actually think there are. And Ive gone over this many times, instead of repeating I’ll simply direct you to past discussions
      http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/27/science-by-press-release-fluoride-iq/#comment-2070
      http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/27/science-by-press-release-fluoride-iq/#comment-2086
      http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/27/science-by-press-release-fluoride-iq/#comment-2087
      http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/06/02/fluoride-the-brain-strike-3-youre-out/#comment-1722

      .

      • Put name here Says:

        You are quoting something from 1977. I want to see hard science on exact particulars of how this is done currently in that area, what the actual levels are, how aluminum and calcium actual take it out, etc.perhaps we can learn something from their ‘process’ to better help those who suffer from fluoride problems, since the general public are only aware of distillation and reverse osmosis.

        Btw “I don’t actual ‘think’ they are” is very vague. The truth is though there are studies either way on the harms of fluoride, it has not been comprehensively studied, especially allergies and inflammation. There are too many conflicting reports worldwide on fluoride effects to be deemed comprehensively safe either way. I know people who are very allergic who fall into the 1% category. I have read the studies pro and con, and there are too many convincing cons (despite your analysis) to play roulette with forced medication. Ignoring peer reviewed studies and not playing safe is just well…irresponsible.

  2. David Carmack Lewis Says:

    Hey this is great. And weird. I just posted a very similar bit. There’s a lot of overlap but enough difference to possibly be of interest. I would love to know what you think.
    http://carmackessays.blogspot.com/2013/05/fluoridation-and-environment_11.html
    P.S. I commented once before about the journal “fluoride and its editorial board.

    • Put name here Says:

      Completely missing the major issue, which is that government is dictating what I do with my body, forcing me to ingest a substance that is a known toxin in various doses. If you are poor, there is no way to filter it out which is why 40% of children now have fluorisis. There are many people I know greatly affected despite what anyone says, although there are studies that SV ignores. If a population is forced to ingest ANYTHING against their will, it is ethically wrong. Fluoride can be CHOSEN to ingest and it must be this way. Why you folks continue to argue over forcing others to ingest something, is suspect. I wonder how you would react if the government made you get injections of a medicine that made YOU sick. If the City wants to force it on people that should not ingest it like the elderly, babies and people with thyroid and kidney problems, then they should pay for filters. End of story.

      • David Carmack Lewis Says:

        I know people don’t like to hear the comparison made to chlorine but the fact is some residual chlorine remains in treated water (our local report indicate a max detected amount of 2.1ppm) so I’m being forced to ingest it. I think that’s a good thing and good public health policy. Interestingly the EPA assigns both chlorine and fluoride the exact same maximum contaminant level of 4 parts per million. Both are used to prevent health problems. I think the comparison is apt.

        • Put name here Says:

          Then those allergic to chlorine have the exact same argument as I do and should demand filters :). That is not a strong argument by shifting blame. That is the same as saying “well we were okay with Bush killing people in a war, but we are not okay with Obama doing it”. The bottom line is that none of it should be tolerated if it poses a health threat. Depending on who you are and what your tolerances are, bodies react differently. Obviously if 40% of kids are getting fluorosis, we have too much of it. Some of my girlfriends with severe fluorosis, cannot afford the $2 grand to fix them, so they haven’t smiled in decades. Regardless of the studies, the physical impacts, the emotional impacts, or the health impacts, if it is something that can be easily taken on one’s own with toothpaste, then don’t force an entire population to bathe in it and drink it. I mean, can we not live in a dictatorship? Is that what you folks want, to impose your will and desires on other people’s bodies? To people like us who are allergic and sick from it, it feels like rape. Sorry to be dramatic, but imagine if you were held down and had no where to run to and were injected with a medication against your will. That is what it feels like to us. I know people who have gone into debt to pay for water delivery. They cannot shower with it and they no longer can go to restaurants or buy liquids in the stores. Water is in everything. Imagine if all your water sources or anything that has water in it had a chemical in it that made you and your family sick. With me, it is MSG. MSG causes inflammation with my fibromyalgia causing great pain, running nose, hives, weakness, fatigue and headaches. Luckily for me I can avoid it and it is not forced upon me :). It is a nightmare for those with fluoride allergies though. Poor mothers who cannot afford bottled water are giving it to their babies under 6 months old which is against FDA recommendations. All these problems can be avoided if people would just use toothpaste on their own. It works better topically anyway! Toothpaste is cheaper than bottled water, filters, health issues, fluorosis fixing, fluoride put in the water, etc.

          • skepticalvegan Says:

            Then those allergic to chlorine have the exact same argument as I do and should demand filters

            Who are these people? Because the The American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology doesn’t appear to recognize a fluoride or a chloride allergy. The closest they come is mentioning issues with asthma and chlorinated swimming pools which have higher levels than tap water making it worse.

            Some of my girlfriends with severe fluorosis, cannot afford the $2 grand to fix them, so they haven’t smiled in decades.

            Well they didnt get it from optimally fluroidated water, it was more than likley that they recived excessive topical application of fluroide through improper toothpaste use. As I said in this comment other sources contribute far more. It should also be noted that “the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is close to zero in communities at all water fluoride concentrations below 2 mg/L.”

            • Put name here Says:

              You just proved my point. Most fluoridated communities have water fluoridation at 4ppm or higher. What are ‘other’ sources? Drinks made with fluoridated water, food made with fluoridated water and fluoridated fertilizer, and fluoridated medications. So you proved my point .If we have all these extra sources which cannot be regulated causing all this extra fluoride and fluorosis, why again are we fluoridating?

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Thanks for demonstrating a lack of basic knowledge of fluoridation. 4ppm is the EPA limit for flouride from natural sources or pollution (and only a small number of communities have levels above 2ppm). The EPA limit has nothing really to do with community fluoridation.
              0.7ppm is the level used in community fluoridation.

            • Put name here Says:

              I am sorry, but you are incorrect. Check around the country for various levels of fluoride in water naturally occurring and added. You will see that it averages around 3-4ppm. 4ppm is where I live. I am given a pamphlet of this yearly. Regardless if it is .05 ppm, which it is not, it is still more than we need since we are over fluoridated in many communities as evidenced in fluorosis epidemics and growth. We don’t need it. Period.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              I am sorry, but you are incorrect. Check around the country for various levels of fluoride in water naturally occurring and added. You will see that it averages around 3-4ppm.

              No it doesn’t. Fluoride levels are listed here http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/MWF/Index.asp

              0.7ppm is the current standard set by the HHS for *added water fluoridation* (when adjusted for any naturally present source), 4ppm refers to the EPA’s maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) which, these are two different standard set by two different agencies, on two different things, for two different purposes. The EPA’s standard is still 4ppm with a secondary non-federally enforceable standard of 2ppm. For more info on how these standards differ read,

              Why is EPA’s drinking water standard (referred to as the MCL or MCLG) different than HHS’ recommended optimal fluoridation level for community drinking water systems?

              EPA’s drinking water standard differs from HHS’ recommended optimal fluoridation level because the two benchmarks have different purposes and are set under different authorities.

              The EPA’s enforceable standard for the highest level of fluoride that is allowed in public water supplies is 4.0 milligrams per liter, and is set to protect against risks from exposure to too much fluoride. The HHS proposed recommended optimal level of 0.7 milligrams per liter is set to promote public health benefits of fluoride for preventing tooth decay while minimizing the chance for dental fluorosis.

              The FDA standard is the maximum amount allowed to occur naturally before the government has to take action to reduce it. The HHS standard is the optimal level for recommend addition of fluoride (adjusted for any naturally present fluoride).

              moving on…

              4ppm is where I live.

              then your community is not adding fluoride to the water, it is one of a small number of communities with a high natural fluoride content and it has nothing to do with a community with little or no fluoride adding enough to bring it up to 0.7ppm

            • Put name here Says:

              Again you are proving my point that many communities, including my own, have quite enough fluoride, thank you very much. Yes we have naturally occurring fluoride already and now less supplementation due to standard changes. The levels were only changed recently if you recall. We also have a higher than normal arthritis, mental disorders and bone spur levels. Not that there is any correlation (wink). In any case, you add fluoride from other sources onto our naturally occurring fluoride, and, well….you get the picture.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Again you are proving my point that many communities, including my own, have quite enough fluoride, thank you very much.

              No one is suggesting adding fluoride to your water or any other community with levels already above .7ppm. Your community’s situation has little to do with community fluoridation which is the controlled adjustment of fluoride levels to .7ppm.

            • Put name here Says:

              The damage has been done in my community. It took them decades to lower the amount. The point is, it can never be regulated because not all people drink or consume the same way. So it stands to reason that it should be up to the individual, unless a Dr. evaluates every person’s individual consumption, mass medication with varying consumption is just plain irresponsibility. It is recommended that babies under 6 months do not consume fluoride, yet many mother’s do not know this. The practice should be chosen based. Can you tell me why an individual cannot choose to medicate themselves?

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              The damage has been done in my community.

              once again, you are NOT talking about community water fluoridation or the levels of fluoride used in community water fluoridation. If you want to blame someone try Mother Nature.

            • Put name here Says:

              Maybe you didn’t read my post. Until just a year ago when levels were dropped, we WERE fluoridated, and yes we got too much! Since the 50′s! I might add that because it is fluctuating, it is hard to be consistent with levels. there are some communities that can’t regulate the levels to match standards.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              The only recent “drop” in levels was the reduction of the HHS-set range of 1.2ppm-0.7ppm to just 0.7ppm. If your water has 4ppm then it is not being fluoridated. No city is fluoridating to 4ppm. The only places with 4ppm are places with fluoride already occurring in the ground water. In such places municipalities do not add fluoride to the water

              This would be a lot easier if you just told me what city you lived in. I could easily check on these things my self.

            • Put name here Says:

              Since water is a bought utility, why are we forced to buy something we don’t want? Why are you so opposed to people having the choice to choose fluoride? Are you afraid no one will buy it on their own? Why is it so important to you that you need to promote forcing it on us? What is wrong with making it a choice, like purchasing vitamins or toothpaste? If we have to buy utility water, then we should have the choice and right to regulate our own dosages. The mentality of forcing it on all of us is like saying that in order for everyone to avoid having headaches, we will put a tiny amount of aspirin in your water on the off chance you may get a headache. Do you see the reasoning? Why not let people chose to buy their own aspirin, when they need it and IF they need it. They could go and get a prescription for all I care. But to make young, old, various health issued people, ingest a medication whether it is good for them or not, it irresponsible. One medication does not fit all. BTW, collodial silver is an excellent tooth decay fighter. Google it :).

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Since water is a bought utility, why are we forced to buy something we don’t want? Why are you so opposed to people having the choice to choose fluoride? Are you afraid no one will buy it on their own? Why is it so important to you that you need to promote forcing it on us? What is wrong with making it a choice, like purchasing vitamins or toothpaste?

              Because I care about poor and homeless people, because I was once both. I stand with Outside In, a social service agency in Portland focusing on homeless youth, on this issue:

              There are thousands of people in our community with no access to dental care at all. Homeless youths often grew up poor and many have never had dental insurance or have ever seen a dentist. Sleeping on the streets, in squats and shelters, homeless youth have very little control over personal hygiene or what they eat.

              At Outside In we see blackened and missing teeth all the time. It is a serious health problem. It is an employment problem. It is a barrier to getting off the streets and joining mainstream society.

              When youth have untreated decay and are in pain they miss school, have trouble eating and speaking, deal with the embarrassment of tooth loss, and have life-long health issues and costs. Addressing dental decay is also remarkably expensive. A 10-year-old child who develops cavities will pay more than $2,000 over a lifetime to take care of just one of those decayed teeth —— a tremendous burden for all people but particularly lower-income and homeless youth and families.

              Just this year Outside In opened a school-based health center at Milwaukie High School. I already knew the dental health crisis was bad but the biggest eye-opener for me was seeing how many children, from that beautiful school in a nice suburban community of Portland, also have bad teeth. Our dental health crisis isn’t just affecting Portland’s low-income communities, people are suffering across the board.

              Our dental crisis is also telling when we compare Portland to other major cities in the Pacific Northwest. For example, we know that Portland kids have 40 percent more decay as compared to kids in Seattle, which is fluoridated. The solution is a combination of education, better access to dental care, and fluoridated water. For a crisis of this magnitude, we need to use all the tools available.

              Brushing with fluoridated toothpaste is a start, but it’s clearly just not enough. Fluoridating our water ensures that every family has access to a safe, effective and affordable cavity prevention measure, regardless of income, ethnicity or education level. It’s time Portland makes a different choice, the community choice. It’s time to fluoridate our water as an investment in children’s health, educational success, and social justice.

              Studies have shown that fluoridated water reduces dental decay by at least 25 percent percent. There have been more than 3,000 studies of its safety and effectiveness. Fluoridated water has been used for more than 65 years and over 200 million Americans currently have access to it. In fact, Portland is the largest city in the country yet to enact water fluoridation —— and our children’s teeth are paying the price.

              To help with the dental health crisis new clinics are opening —— but they can’t keep up. We need to do more to prevent Portlanders from needing urgent care and painful extractions in the first place. The volunteer dentists on the Medical Teams International dental van and the dedicated staff at the new Multnomah County Billi Odegaard Dental Clinic are heroes. They are trying to help and heal people each day. The big problem is that they are fighting a fight that cannot be won one mouth at a time. There are too many barriers for low income people —— we are living in a society where there are extreme disparities in access to dental care. Education, access to more care, and healthier foods are all an important part of the comprehensive dental health program we need in Portland but it only makes sense that our community should take the precaution of fluoridating our water to give everybody a better chance at having healthy teeth.

              Outside In has weighed the arguments for and against water fluoridation. We love the uniqueness of our community and our patriotic leaning toward what’s “weird,” but when weird ends up hurting children and those who can’t afford dental care, weird becomes “wrong.” This is one area where the public health data is irrefutable.

              Every major health care organization in the country, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the National Institutes of Health, has come to the same conclusion: Fluoridation is safe and effective. It is time for Portland to embrace the norm when it comes to protecting our kids. It’s time Portland makes a different choice. It’s time to fluoridate our water as an act of social justice. Please join me, Outside In, the Coalition of Community Health Clinics, Medical Teams International, and over 80 other organizations in endorsing a YES vote on ballot measure 26-151 on or before May 21.

              One medication does not fit all.

              It has worked fine with water fluoridation, iodized salt, folic acid fortified grain products, and vitamin fortified foods and beverages. In fact all the community level interventions have been a benifit to society.

            • Put name here Says:

              You have proved my point again. Do you think when a homeless person goes in for an interview and they have fluorisis, that it makes their chances of getting work better? How is a person supposed to pay $2-4 thousand dollars to get their teeth fixed from fluorosis damage? As a homeless person myself at one time, there are services for the poor for teeth in my community. They are not in all communities. However, giving them a toxic substance is not the answer. They cannot choose or can afford to buy filters if they cannot tolerate it. As a homeless person, who cannot choose anything really, only what they can find, it is an even bigger slap in the face to HAVE to drink a substance that causes fluorosis and health issues. I will tell you this, for certain the rich do not drink the tap water. No one would if they had to choose. But unfortunately, the poor have no choice what goes into their bodies. At least give them some choice. It is insulting otherwise. Where I live, a cavity is filled for $35 for low income. A lot cheaper than the consequences.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              The comments are getting nested too deep for easy reading so I’ve responded here http://skepticalvegan.com/2013/05/12/fluoride-and-fish/#comment-3092

            • Put name here Says:

              I don’t think I am able to debate with you because I cannot come on any common ground as long as you believe it is okay to force your will on another person’s body without their consent. That is a fundamental ethic that I ‘thought’ was universal to humanity. But if I am speaking to someone who in fact thinks that that is okay, I can no longer address you as we come from entirely different viewpoints. I come from a point of view that people deserve the right to chose what medication goes in their body. You do not . You come from the belief that what is good for many and not the few is okay, so the few need to suck it up. I do not. You believe, like a religious belief, that what YOUR selected studies says are true and that anything in opposition is not. I believe that one can not believe either way because each side is convincing, so therefore people should not be guinea pigs on this experiment. You believe that even though there are studies on allergies, and people with problems, that they are all lies or irrelevant or somehow faulty. I do not think the studies and experiences should be dismissed. But ultimately what divides us is the forcing of a medication on bodies. I don’t understand people like yourself as I am very opposed to dictatorship this way. It is one thing to have a law that helps society,like stopping at a streetlight, but it is another when it involves having government dictate my personal body, especially when it makes people like me and others sick (look at Spittle’s studies at the bottom). Dosages will never be able to be controlled or regulated. And when you have several water companies accidentally over fluoridating,and spilling, destroying the environment, you have another problem (transportation trucks have often spilled on the road due to liners deteriorating by the corrosive fluoride. A friend of mine is 43 and has cancer. He has been transporting fluoride for 10 years. He has told me awful stories about the plants and spills).

              But getting back to this fundamental issue of imposing a health standard among everyone, in my eyes it is just not okay and it never will be. We are not all clones of the same age, weight, dna, etc.and one remedy does not fit all. My friends are disfigured from fluorosis as an example and it is insulting to say it is ‘not that bad’. We should have the ability to chose what is right for our own bodies, and for the select few that cannot afford it, the money for mass fluoridating should be given to those that need care. Homeless people should not have to pay $35 for a cavity filling. It should be free. Most people can afford fluoride supplementation, so let 99% of those pay for it themselves. For the homeless, give the money saved by City fluoridation for dental care for them. But stop making people suffer and disfigured because of your imposed will. Forcing me and dictating your will on MY own body is offensive. I don’t do it to you.

              I will leave off with an old article by the EPA scientist union on why they oppose it. At the bottom are studies that I am sure you find fault with. I find fault with your studies too as they were financed by the biased fluoride industry in many cases, including the study that started it all, but the point is this: each side finds problems with the other, and because of this impasse, it is better to stop the practice until BETTER unbiased studies come along (although China has some good ones this last year). In the meantime, we can stop spending City money on this, let people supplement themselves, etc.

              WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS
              OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

              “Why EPA Headquarters’ Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation.”

              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. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

              The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride’s only effects were beneficial – reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.

              Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have “funky” teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

              We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.\1

              Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

              In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers \2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride – as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers \3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan’s group found that several key chemicals in the brain – those that form the membrane of brain cells – were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

              Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others \4 reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed “optimal” by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats – rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix’s finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is “seen” by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the “optimal” level of 1 ppm.

              In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China\5,\6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

              Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke\7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston \8.

              From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

              We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue\9 . The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding – that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

              The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal “trigger” mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

              Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997 \14. Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. \15a, b, c, d, e. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

              Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.\16. The latest publication \17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

              John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important\18. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation – until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, “Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.” In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.

              Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health \19, \20, \21. However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste\22. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

              In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

              So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled – and apparently uncontrollable – exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media\23, that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America’s children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York\17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

              Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

              We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA’s risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

              The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry\24.

              This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.

              END NOTE LITERATURE CITATIONS

              1.Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61.

              2.Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995)

              3. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).

              4. Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998).

              5. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)

              6.. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994).

              8. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956).

              9. Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. 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 ODW.

              10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

              11a. Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984).

              11b. Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984).

              11c. Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

              11d. An increase in the number of Down’s syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985).

              12. 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).

              13. Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991).

              14. New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle, B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997).

              15a. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990)

              15b. Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992).

              15c. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992).

              15d. Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly [letter]. Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995).

              15e. Water fluoridation and hip fracture [letter]. Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991).

              16. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990).

              17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47.

              18. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 1-16 (1997).

              19. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71 (1999).

              20. Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999).

              21. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999).

              22. Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991).

              23.Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street Journal Dec. 21, 1998.

              24. 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.

              OTHER CITATIONS (This short list does not include the entire literature on fluoride effects)

              a. Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42 109-121 (1994)

              b. Ameliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988).

              c. Milk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986).

              d. Maternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R., Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54 263-269 (1988).

              e. Effects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J., Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985).

              f. Fluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987).

              g. Fluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 3 701-705 (1979).

              h. An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J., Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28 (1981).

              i. The effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan, Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988).

              j. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988).

              k. The crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase. Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988 (1984).

              l. Intracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986).

              m. Fluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd (London) (1937).

              n. Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825 152-166 (1997).

              o. Allergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273 (1993)

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              The court’s power to review state legislative action taken pursuant to the police power is limited by the doctrine of separation of powers enunciated in the United States Constitution.
              The United States Constitution does not grant any general police power to the federal government. Thus, that power – the power to make laws providing for the protection of the health, welfare, and morals of the public – is inherently reserved to the states. The following are among those actions that have been held to be valid exercises of state police power: prohibiting cigarette smoking in confined areas, see State v. Heidenhain, 7 So. 61 (La. 1890); requiring all citizens to receive vaccinations against contagious illness, see Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905); requiring infected or impure goods to be quarantined, see Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 11 N.E. 929 (Mass. 1887). 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law §§ 363–365.
              As governed by the doctrine of separation of powers, the ability of the courts to review legislative action taken by states pursuant to their police power is limited. Several state courts have been faced with the question of whether the addition of fluorides to the water is a proper exercise of police power. These courts have almost uniformly held that such action is proper. Chapman v. City of Shreveport, 74 So.2d 142 (La. 1954); Attaya v. Town of Gonzales, 192 So.2d 188 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1966); De Aryan v. Butler, Mayor, et al., 260 P.2d 98 (Cal.App. 4th Dis. 1953); Kaul v. City of Chehalis, 277 P.2d 352 (Wash. 1954) ; Rogowski v. City of Detroit, 132 N.W. 2d 16 (Mich. 1965); Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 121 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 1954) ; Dowell v. City of Tulsa, 273 P.2d 859 (Ok. 1954).
              For example, in De Aryan v. Butler, Mayor, et al., 260 P.2d 98, 101 (Cal.App. 4 th Dis. 1953), the court held that the decision to fluoridate the public water supply was well within the province of the state legislature, explaining “The legislature is possessed of the entire police power of the State, except as its power is limited by the provisions of the Constitution and other laws applicable thereto. Such police power is an indispensable prerogative of sovereignty and may not be legally limited even though at times its operation may seem harsh, so long as it is not unreasonable and arbitrarily invoked and applied.” Other state courts considering this issue have essentially resolved it in the same way.
              Though the United States Supreme Court has never specifically considered whether the addition of fluorides to water is a proper exercise of police power, it has recognized that broad deference must be accorded to the state legislature in determining what actions are necessary to protect the public welfare. In Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 195 U.S. 11 (1905) , the United States Supreme Court considered the argument that compelling citizens to receive a smallpox vaccination was an unconstitutional and improper exercise of the police power. In rejecting this argument the Supreme Court stated:
              “If there is any such power in the judiciary to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare, it can only be when that which the legislature has done comes within the rule that, if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.” Jacobson at 31.
              Thus, a court cannot strike down an ordinance authorizing the fluoridation of water promulgated pursuant to the state’s police power without first determining that the action bears no reasonable relation to protecting the public health, is unreasonable and arbitrary, or is an invasion of the fundamental rights granted to individuals by the Constitution.
              The wide latitude that courts must grant determinations made by state legislatures pursuant to their police power means that courts will have little opportunity to examine those substantive issues central to the fluoridation debate. Several courts faced with attacks against fluoridation statutes have clearly stated that when reviewing a decision made by the legislature based on careful evaluation of scientific evidence, the court must defer to the legislature’s decision as it is not within the power of the judiciary to make an evaluation of its own when there is evidence in the record sufficient to support the legislature’s conclusion. Attaya v. Town of Gonzales, 192 So. 2d 188, 192 (La.App. 1st. Cir. 1966); Froncek v. City of Milwaukee, 69 N.W.2d 242, 248 (Wis. 1955); Rogowski v. City of Detroit, 132 N.W.2d 16, 23 (Mich. 1965) .
              For instance, in Froncek v. City of Milwaukee, 69 N.W.2d 242, 248 (Wisc. 1955), the court determined it was unnecessary to engage in a thorough review of the scientific evidence in the record. In so holding, the court noted the extensive evaluation undertaken by the city council and determined that this evaluation was more than sufficient to support the city council’s conclusion. Similarly, in Attaya v. Town of Gonzales, 192 So.2d 188, 192 (La.App. 1 st Cir. 1966), the plaintiffs alleged that the trial court had erred in failing to permit them to introduce evidence as to the potentially harmful effects of fluoride. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, explaining that courts must grant great latitude to legislative decisions upon review. “That fluoridation may be a controversial subject does not in itself justify the court substituting their judgment for that of the legislative body. The merits or demerits of the subject, in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, unreasonableness or capriciousness on the part of the legislative body, is solely within the province of the Governing Authority.” Id. at 193.
              The court in Rogowski v. City of Detroit, 132 N.W.2d 16, 23 (Mich. 1965), likewise refused to reconsider the scientific determination made by the city council. The Rogowski court went further than have most courts in stating that a court may take judicial notice of the benefits provided by the addition of fluorides to the water based on extensive scientific evidence and other support found in the record. In Rogowski, the City of Detroit introduced into the record a significant number of affidavits and professional opinions supporting fluoridation. The court found it unnecessary to engage in its own evaluation of the evidence presented by both sides, and concluded it could “…take judicial notice of the common knowledge or belief, as evidenced by the above listed public statements, affidavits, and official actions, that fluoridation is beneficial to prevent dental caries and so improve public health.” Id.
              Courts across the country have recognized the fluoridation of public water as a permissible exercise of police power. Judicial review of such legislative action is accordingly limited. When a municipality acts pursuant to a delegation of authority properly granted by the legislature, the court is without power to interfere unless it is determined that the municipal action is arbitrary or unreasonable.

              http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/FluoridationisaProperUseofthePolicePower.html

            • Put name here Says:

              I am not sure why you posted your last post. You are very aware that most local governments mandate fluoridation without a vote. In most cases communities do NOT want it and have to fight to have it removed, like in the case of Portland. We are not talking about vaccines that help prevent death. We are talking about a few cavities. Big difference. It is like saying that ‘some people may have heart disease, so let’s give everyone a prescription ahead of time in the possibility they will have it. The logic does not compute. One medication dosage for all, despite variances and exposure, is irresponsible. Despite what is allowed to occur, it is still illegal for government to mass medicate. There is a current pending lawsuit to this effect. However, as we very well know, judges and supreme court judges get paid off by the very wealthy lobby of fertilizer companies who will do anything to keep dumping their waste product in our mouths. This is the truth. Big money mafias rule this country. How do you think Koch Industries climbed up wealth this last decade? It is extremely naive to think that fluoride is not BIG business with a ruthless lobby. All one has to do is interview EPA scientist to this effect. BTW What are your thoughts on the film “Fluoridegate”? What did you think of the scientists that were interviewed?

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              You are very aware that most local governments mandate fluoridation without a vote

              Which is within their authority as the last post demonstrates. Your issue doesn’t sound like its with fluoridation but rather with the fundamental structure of Us governance. It seems you don’t understand or accept the role of representative democracy. And thats fine, but at that point it’s pointless to talk about such a specific issue like fluoridation when You are really talking about overturning representative democracy.

              In the end you just come off as a conspiracy theorist. I don’t feel its worth my time to engage you. Good bye.

            • Put name here Says:

              I knew you didn’t want to address the EPA scientists that were interviewed in “Fluoridegate”. THAT is not conspiracy. It came from the actual horse’s mouth. The people who did the testing for your studies that ‘you’ quote.

            • skepticalvegan Says:

              Ive addressed the claim about the EPA union numerous times, you have not addressed the rebuttal.

              The basis for an allegation that the EPA opposes fluoridation occurred on July 2, 1997, when 20 EPA employees who opposed fluoridation attended a meeting of Chapter 280 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). At that time, EPA had approximately 18,000 employees, and Chapter 280 of NFFE represented 1000-1600 of them. Because those 20 EPA employees constituted a majority of the union members attending the meeting, they were able to adopt a resolution opposing California’s mandatory fluoridation law. At a subsequent press conference they claimed that NFFE adopted the resolution.

              Within a few days, Chapter officers issued an official statement declaring that the press conference was held without their knowledge or consent.

              Subsequent to that, two employees implied that EPA opposed fluoridation. Neither NFFE nor its successor, the National Treasury Employees’ Union, has published an official position on fluoridation. The lack of all pertinent details, has mislead some of the public into thinking that EPA is opposed to water fluoridation.

              20 employees out of a union of 18,000 held a meeting without consent of the rest of the union and used it to make policy statement that the union didn’t actually support. The officers of the Union repudiated this dishonest tactic.

              Ive also seen fluoridegate, I don’t find it convincing at all.

            • Put name here Says:

              I didn’t see the rebuttal until now. I am aware that there were some scientists that wrote from the union and not all. The ones involved were scientists that actually worked on fluoride testing, unlike the other scientists who worked in other departments in different fields of studies and had no knowledge of the findings.

              What are your thoughts about Robert Carton, retired EPA scientist, William Hirzy senior retired EPA scientist ,and retired EPA senior science advisor William Marcus interviews? Can you find fault with their testimony?What are your thoughts with Marcus’ case that he won in court? These are facts and not conspiracy. Documented in the court’s and eye witness accounts and paper trailed.

      • skepticalvegan Says:

        If you are poor, there is no way to filter it out which is why 40% of children now have fluorisis.

        Actually other sources of fluoride have a bigger impact “water fluoridation has unique advantages from the perspectives of distribution, equity, compliance and cost-effectiveness over other fluoride technologies, it remains as the fundamental base for caries prevention. The increasingly greater contribution that other sources of fluoride make to dental fluorosis suggests that these sources of fluoride, many of which are used on an elective basis, should be more closely examined for needed changes.

        For a full discussion of the issue of dental fluorosis see this past post http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/09/14/dental-fluorosis/

    • skepticalvegan Says:

      I read you piece How Some on the Right use Fluoride to Co-opt the Left in preparation for this post. Good stuff. I’ll check out your other posts.

  3. skepticalvegan Says:

    You have proved my point again. Do you think when a homeless person goes in for an interview and they have fluorisis, that it makes their chances of getting work better? How is a person supposed to pay $2-4 thousand dollars to get their teeth fixed from fluorosis damage? … They cannot choose or can afford to buy filters if they cannot tolerate it. As a homeless person, who cannot choose anything really, only what they can find, it is an even bigger slap in the face to HAVE to drink a substance that causes fluorosis and health issues.

    I’ve already addressed the false claim that fluoridated water cause fluorosis of significant aesthetic concern. The idea that water fluoridation causes the need for expensive repair work is false. The idea that water fluoridation is causeing health problems is false. You simply keep repeating false claims.

    “water fluoridation has unique advantages from the perspectives of distribution, equity, compliance and cost-effectiveness over other fluoride technologies, it remains as the fundamental base for caries prevention. The increasingly greater contribution that other sources of fluoride make to dental fluorosis suggests that these sources of fluoride, many of which are used on an elective basis, should be more closely examined for needed changes.”

    and just as an anecdote: I currently live in a fluoridated city, noticeable fluorosis is not prevalent here.

    If you want to continue to discussion of the issue of dental fluorosis take your concerns to the comment section on this post –> http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/09/14/dental-fluorosis/ (I’m serious, keep comments on topic)

    As a homeless person myself at one time, there are services for the poor for teeth in my community. They are not in all communities.

    And the quote I posted was from one such homeless aid organization, I’ll repost the relevant portions

    Brushing with fluoridated toothpaste is a start, but it’s clearly just not enough. Fluoridating our water ensures that every family has access to a safe, effective and affordable cavity prevention measure, regardless of income, ethnicity or education level. It’s time Portland makes a different choice, the community choice. It’s time to fluoridate our water as an investment in children’s health, educational success, and social justice.

    To help with the dental health crisis new clinics are opening —— but they can’t keep up. We need to do more to prevent Portlanders from needing urgent care and painful extractions in the first place. The volunteer dentists on the Medical Teams International dental van and the dedicated staff at the new Multnomah County Billi Odegaard Dental Clinic are heroes. They are trying to help and heal people each day. The big problem is that they are fighting a fight that cannot be won one mouth at a time. There are too many barriers for low income people —— we are living in a society where there are extreme disparities in access to dental care. Education, access to more care, and healthier foods are all an important part of the comprehensive dental health program we need in Portland but it only makes sense that our community should take the precaution of fluoridating our water to give everybody a better chance at having healthy teeth.”

    http://news.streetroots.org/2013/05/02/community-water-fluoridation-social-justice-issue-our-time

    Can you not see how the very people servicing poor and homeless people are the ones saying that their services are not enough and fluoridation would help? These are the very people serving the homeless community in Portland which is considering fluoridation at this moment and they are saying you are wrong.

    I also recommend reading this account from a dentist who treat homeless kids http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910815&slug=1299985

    However, giving them a toxic substance is not the answer.

    Fluoridation is not the answer, but its is part of it, a valuable part that should not be shunned.

    I will tell you this, for certain the rich do not drink the tap water. No one would if they had to choose.

    I know plenty of people with more than enough money to buy filters or bottled water that preferentially drink tap water. I drink tap water, I’m quite satisfied with the chemically treated tap water in my community.

    • cj Says:

      Fluoride is not healthy and harms instead of heals. Lol come on. You sound exactly like the admin at metabunk.com
      Same tactics, same sarcasm, same rebuttal no matter what studies and sciences are presented. This is so fun to read,,, so very entertaining…it’d be a shame if you do spend this much energy pushing toxins to your readers for free.

  4. Put name here Says:

    As I wait to hear what you think of the EPA scientists studies and interviews, here is some more analysis to consider:

    Industrial-grade Fluoridation Chemicals
    Cost Society $Billions in Arsenic-induced Cancers

    NEW YORK– Industrial-grade fluoride chemicals added to US public water supplies contain arsenic that the EPA classifies as a human carcinogen. Switching to low-arsenic pharmaceutical-grade fluoride will save society $1 billion to $14 billion annually, according to research published in Environmental Science & Policy, led by former EPA senior scientists who are experts in chemical risk assessment, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
    Although never studied for safety or efficacy, hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) is added to public water supplies as a purported cavity preventive. The industry-funded group that regulates water additives, NSF International, allows several toxins in HFSA, including arsenic.
    The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to determine the level of certain contaminants in drinking water at which no adverse health effects are likely to occur. These health goals, based solely on possible health risks and exposure over a lifetime with an adequate margin of safety, are called maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG). The MCLG for arsenic is zero. The EPA also sets an enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL), but concedes this level will not prevent cancers.
    Senior researchers, Drs. William Hirzy and Robert Carton , write, “Arsenic levels in this HFSA product vary substantially but are typically about 30-35 mg/kg.” These levels would qualify it as toxic hazardous waste if not for a legal loophole because it is sold to fluoridate water. The study found HFSA raised the arsenic level of finished or tap water by anywhere from 0.078 to 0.43 parts per billion (ppb).
    Ninety percent of arsenic showing up in tap water comes from fluoridation chemicals, according to a study in the American Water Works Association publication, Opflow, led by Dr. Cheng-nan Weng.
    Hirzy and Carton found that industrial-grade HFSA contains from 100 to 500 times more arsenic than pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (NaF).
    Using EPA’s calculation methods, HFSA would cause from 320 to 1800 arsenic-induced cancers per year. They calculated these cancers would cost society $1 billion to $6 billion per year.
    The researchers conclude: “Our analysis shows that, if local governments that currently add HFSA to their drinking water wish to continue delivering fluoride to their citizens and at the same time reduce the number of lung and bladder cancers among their citizens, they could do so with a significant net benefit to society by switching to USP NaF [pharmaceutical grade Sodium Fluoride] for fluoridation.”
    Paul Connett , PhD, FAN Director says, “This study provides additional scientific evidence that fluoridation should be stopped, as the purported benefits no longer outweigh the risks.”
    Reference: Hirzy JW, Carton RJ, Bonanni CD, Montanero CM, Michael F. Nagle MF. 2013. Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as fluoridating agents—A cost–benefit analysis. Environmental Science & Policy 29: 81-86 (May).

  5. john joey Says:

    This is all fascinating to read, and a good indicator of what generally passes for intellectual debate.

    I love the way you dodge around like a politician in the above exchange, and fail to engage with the above commentator’s main points.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 206 other followers

%d bloggers like this: