Comments on: Fluoride and Fish Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:53:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: john joey Tue, 21 May 2013 03:26:47 +0000 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.

By: Put name here Fri, 17 May 2013 02:56:19 +0000 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).

By: cj Thu, 16 May 2013 23:22:58 +0000

Could you direct me to any explanations that prove these quotes as fictitious? o_O

By: cj Thu, 16 May 2013 23:20:46 +0000 Fluoride is not healthy and harms instead of heals. Lol come on. You sound exactly like the admin at
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.

By: Put name here Thu, 16 May 2013 03:58:47 +0000 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.

By: skepticalvegan Thu, 16 May 2013 03:44:27 +0000 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.

By: Put name here Thu, 16 May 2013 02:03:32 +0000 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.

By: skepticalvegan Thu, 16 May 2013 01:15:13 +0000

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.

By: Put name here Thu, 16 May 2013 00:47:52 +0000 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?

By: skepticalvegan Wed, 15 May 2013 21:16:26 +0000

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.