Thursday, December 29, 2016

Fluoridation: A Struggle With Titans - Then and Now

One of the first scientists to doubt and then oppose fluoridation had impeccable credentials and made amazing medical discoveries.  Yet, his fluoride expertise was disregarded.  George L. Waldbott, MD, wrote a book detailing how science and common sense was ignored  to promote and protect fluoridation (just as it is today.  Only the "titans" have changed.) This is Chapter 1: ("Why I Became Curious") in Waldbott's book A Struggle With Titans.

"What do you know about fluoridation?"
This was my wife's greeting late one afternoon in the spring, 1953, upon my return from a busy day in  my office.

"Fluoridation?" I question.  "Fluoridation? - I do know something about fluorine. It is a poisonous gas. Like chlorine it belongs to the halogen group, but-fluoridation? I confess that I am only vaguely familiar with the subject."

"I just read an article about it in a magazine called The Freeman," she replied. "It told the full story. The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) is adding fluoride to drinking water in a number of American cities. It is supposed to prevent tooth decay."

"Fluoride is a gas. Is it being added to drinking water?" I inquired. "Who wrote this article?"

"The author?  What was his name? Let me get it. His name is Rorty, James Rorty. No, it isn't the gas that is added to the water, it is fluorine salt, sodium fluoride."

"Fluoridation? The current US medical literature has only occasionally dealt with it. If sodium fluoride really prevents tooth decay this would certainly mean progress. It would reach every person in a community. But is it wise to add a chemical to water other than to purify it?" I asked.

"This is the very idea. The article objects to it. It says that fluoride salts are extremely poisonous. they are used to kill rodents." This remark aroused my attention, but I felt sure that in such small amounts it would not be harmful.

"Oh, I wouldn't be concerned. The USPHS certainly must have made enough studies  to make sure that there cannot possibly be any harm. They have excellent scientists. They have every medical and dental school at their disposal to carry out controlled studies. They must know what they are doing. Who are we, you and I, to question their decision?"

This settled the matter for the time being. I had my hands full. It was hay fever season, the time when I am unusually busy in the office and dead tired in the evenings. Furthermore, I was devoting all my spare time to preparing an article for the newly formed medical magazine, GP.  I was on their consulting staff and felt that I should make a contribution. I had just completed some studies on dermatitis, an allergic skin disease. In my book entitled Contact Dermatitis where my observations had been assembled, I had proposed a new approach for determining the cause of this disease. A most intriguing endeavor, it presented to the profession a glimpse into the detective workshop of an allergist. I was thoroughly preoccupied and my good wife knew it.

That night, after the lights in the bedroom had been turned off, she asked again:

"I have been thinking about that article. There was a Hearing in February, 1952, in Washington DC, before the House Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Foods and Cosmetics, according to the article. Experts on both sides were heard. It was brought out that the question of toxicity and possible damage from fluoride added to water is very much up in the air. There are still too many unanswered questions."

"If this is true, " I assured her "they will be answered by the proper authorities, particularly by the American Medical Association, before the USPHS introduces fluoridation on a large scale."

"But, no" she explained, "it is already being used in many cities in the United States and no one knows how much harm it can do!"

At breakfast she brought the subject up again.

"I have been thinking about that fluoride business again during the night couldn't the America Medical Association be in error? Don't medical ideas and medical practices change, especially when they are new and inadequately tested?

"Look at your own experience with the case of a penicillin death! No one would ever have predicted that this most valuable wonder drug could be harmful under certain conditions; that it could even cause death. There is evidence that milk contains penicillin in small amounts. Isn't this liable to sensitize people, especially your own allergic patients?"

The reference to penicillin aroused mixed feelings. One of my patients had died suddenly after an injection of penicillin for a chronic lung infection. It was the first case of its  kind ever reported in the medical literature. It appeared in 1949 in the Journal of the American Medial Association.  A middle aged lady with asthma had been given several injections of penicillin. Since she had greatly benefited from this drug, she asked me to instruct her sister, a registered nurse, to let her have a few doses at home. Within ten seconds after the injection of a relatively small dose of 30,000 units she collapsed and expired. No one could have known that during the two to three weeks which had elapsed from one injection to the other she had become allergic to the drug.

The wonder drug - penicillin - which was, and still is, the greatest saver of lives also has the  power to kill. My report, the first of its kind, made a definite impact on our approach to penicillin therapy.  Time magazine covered it in its March 7, 1949, issue. Up to that time hives, dermatitis and other allergic trouble were known to result from penicillin, but no one had died from it.  My report alerted physicians to the potential danger of using it indiscriminately.

"Valuable as penicillin is, do you think anyone would even so much as suggest that it be added to drinking water to prevent imminent infection on a large scale?" she asked.

I had nothing to add. Somehow I couldn't entertain the thought that the AMA would endorse anything unless they knew exactly what they were endorsing.

"You can't discount, " she continued, "the importance of the testimony of some of the country's most respected career scientists who presented unfavorable evidence at the Washington, D.C. hearings."

"If they were competent scientists," I replied, "they would have registered their views with the AMA.  Every so often quacks and charlatans are admitted at public hearings to give medical testimony. They act as so-called experts, yet they are in no way qualified. Do you remember ten or fifteen years ago when I appeared at a Detroit Federal Court as a key witness for the US Food and Drug Administration in the trial against a physician who claimed to cure cancer and 'allergies' with a single injection? What an assortment of so-called 'experts' appeared in his behalf. their testimonials regarding cancer cures made no sense to anyone with a scientific background; yet most of the men testifying for him were bona fide MD's qualified physicians."

"But - No!  The hearing in Washington was quite different," she retorted. "The witnesses representing the opposition were outstanding scientists, leaders in fluoride research! Some of them had done research for a lifetime - let me ask you this: Can't 'real experts' be mistaken, too, on some questions?"

My wife had seen an article in the Seattle times of Dec. 15, 1952, which stated that The Aluminum Company of America had offered many grants to research groups for a solution of their serious disposal problem. Fluorides, by-products especially of the aluminum, steel and fertilizer industries, contaminated the atmosphere and induced poisoining of livestock and damage to plant life.
"The PHS," she stated, "is collaborating closely with industry in the disbursement of research funds to overcome the menace. Isn't it possible that a conflict of interest might tarnish the objectivity of a researcher holding an influential position?"

This thought was revolting to me. to think of scientists in the PHS as being motivated by politic and/or buy personal gain - a fantastic accusation!

"How can you make such a statement?" I retorted irately. "the men in the PHS are scientists, highly respected altruistic scientists."

At that time I would not have believed what happened a few years later. According to Time, May 30, 1960, p. 3, a director of a branch of the PHS, Dr. Henry Welch, was  obliged to resign his post because he had received $260,766.00 derived in one way or another from the interests he was sworn to regulate." How a scientist with the best intentions can be caught in a dilemma I learned from my own experience.

Indeed, at this moment I myself, was the recipient of a sum of money "for research." Strangely enough, I was completely unaware of what later turned out to be its real purpose, namely to bury the facts should the study  produce results not in harmony with the donor's aims. Whether or not such money is "compensation for services" is a matter for individual interpretation. This is how it happened:

In 1953, I described a new disease in the Journal of the AMA which I termed "Smoker's Respiratory Syndrome."

This condition closely simulates asthma. It begins with a chronic inflammation of throat and pharynx which gradually descends into the bronchial tree. I had observed it many times in my extensive allergy practice among people who had been steady cigarette smokers. I had never attributed it to smoking. These patients cough and wheeze as though they had real allergic asthma. they have pains in chest and arms in conjunction with this cough.

Through a peculiar coincidence I was able to discover the cause of a disease which others as well as myself had encountered many times in their daily practice but had never been able to explain:

I, myself, had suffered from it.

Wheezing in the chest had gradually increased. It was especially noticeable in the morning. Day after day I coughed up heavy mucus. My throat was constantly irritated. I realized it could not be bronchial asthma, a disease to the study of which I had devoted my life's work. The next logical diagnosis to consider was cancer of the lungs.

I was faced with hospitalization for bronchoscropic examination, a rather unpleasant procedure. Reflecting upon the course of my ailment, it occurred to me that my cough and wheezing were usually worse on Monday mornings than during the balance of the week. On Sundays I was in the habit of smoking incessantly; during the week I could only smoke at mealtime, since most of my asthma patients could not tolerate tobacco smoke in my office. I decided to stop smoking.  To my surprise, after about three weeks time this peculiar disease which had been a source of much concern to me had promptly and completely subsided.

Those who have done research know only too well how practically every new discovery is subjected to critics. Most of it comes from individuals with little knowledge of the subject. Critiques, however, are desirable. They stimulate further thought and work. surprisingly, my report in the AMA Journal aroused very little adverse criticism. Numerous physicians throughout the country congratulated me on pinpointing this new disease and its source. Many who read my article recalled cases in which they had made an incorrect diagnosis as had I many times.

Eight years later, two Boston clinicians, Dr. F. C. Lowel and Dr. W. Franklin, followed my lead and reported on the more advanced state of this disease, chronic emphysema. this represents a serious complication interfering considerably with the function of the lungs and even affecting the heart.
One morning a letter arrived from a well-known physician a consultant to many news magazines and drug companies. He asked me to do some research for one of the cigarette companies for which he acted as intermediary. He suggested that I set up a research program to determine whether or not a newly devised cigarette filter might prevent the disease that I have described. He asked how much money such an investigation would entail.

For a controlled study I suggested that patients, once they had recovered their health, be asked to smoke the particular brand of filtered cigarettes. Bacteriological tests, tissue examinations and lung function studies were to be done before and after the experimental period. I determined the amount of money necessary for those who were to assists me in this project, for the equipment that had to be purchased and for my own services. The research was bound to make considerable demands on my time. Several thousand dollars were involved.

When the work was completed and ready for publication I was told that the company would publish it at some future date.  It was to be a portion of a comprehensive report together with two or three other pieces of research by other investigators who had made similar studies. I dismissed the entire subject from my mind in the firm belief that the company's representative would eventually publish it in one of the medial journals which he edited.

This was never done because my report had not shown that the cigarette filter prevented the disease. After several months, when I inquired about its fate, I was assured that the article would be published eventually. After the lapse of many more months, I requested the article's return, but no answer was ever forthcoming.

As I was later to realize, the outcome of this research is related to what is happening with respect to research on fluoride:

As physicians we may be confronted with a common disease. We would never suspect its origin or its precipitating cause until someone first clearly pinpoints its manifestations and relates cause to effect. Since I became aware of the ill effect of smoking by the simple expedient of advising a person  to discontinue it, many others, like myself, have been cured - and I use this term advisedly, many of these patients had been incorrectly diagnosed as "intrinsic" or "idiopathic" asthma, i.e., asthma, without cause. Indeed this disease has taken many a life without anyone, not even the greatest experts in medicine and pathology, so much as suspecting that cigarettes were the cause.

My experience with the cigarette company demonstrates something much more significant than the establishment of a scientific fact or the discovery of a new disease:

Research which does not prove a predetermined theory is often not published. Its results can be shelved by its sponsor. Even the investigator engaged to carry out research may not ever learn why. Nevertheless, my wife's suggestion that scientists cooperating with industry might abandon their objectivity to do their benefactors' bidding did not shake my faith in their integrity.

A few years later, in 1956, a newspaper report in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 18, evoked further skepticism about the US Public Health Service concerning their promotion of fluoridation:

The late famous St. Louis, Mo., surgeon, Dr. Evarts A. Graham, had delivered the Roy D. McClure lecture at Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital. Dr. Graham was critical of the USPHS because they failed to warn the public about the hazard of cigarette smoking.

"If there were as much evidence that spinach caused cancer of the stomach, the USPHS would have plastered the country with placards", Dr. Graham stated.

He expressed the hope that the scientists conducting a $1,500,000 dollar research program for the tobacco companies "won't set up a smoke screen."

Dr. Graham "charged the tobacco companies with campaigning to offset lagging sales by starting people smoking at a younger age", the Post Dispatch reported.

The PHS seemed to accept the explanation of manufacturers of cigarettes that air contamination, not smoking, is the principal cause of lung cancer.

I wrote to D.r Graham concerning his views on fluoridation. Judging from his own experience, he was convinced that not all was well on the fluoridation front. He blamed the PHS for launching a project fraught with danger.

My experience with the tobacco company had aroused my misgivings about some industry-sponsored research.

My strong rebuke to my wife when she mentioned that scientists might have ulterior motives ended our discussion of fluoridation.

She, however, was not satisfied with my answer. The next morning several letters were ready for mailing, addressed to scientists who had appeared as expert witnesses in opposition to artificial fluoridation at the Washington hearing in February, 1952.

A Struggle With Titans, (1965) By Dr. George Waldbott, Chapter 3 "A Fateful Decision" is here:

Friday, December 09, 2016

EPA Fluoridation Fraud Charged by EPA Scientist in 1991

 August 19, 1991

The fluoride in drinking water standard, or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL), published by EPA in the Federal Register on Nov. 14, 1985, is a classic case of political interference with science. The regulation is a fraudulent statement by the Federal Government that 4 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of fluoride in drinking water is safe with an adequate margin of safety. There is evidence that critical information in the scientific and technical support documents used to develop the standard was falsified by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect a long-standing public health policy.  EPA professionals were never asked to conduct a thorough independent analysis of the fluoride literature. Instead, their credentials were used to give the appearance of scientific credibility. They were used to support the predetermined conclusion that 4 mg/l of fluoride in drinking water was safe.

Ethical misconduct by EPA management included the following: they ignored the requirements of the law to protect sensitive individuals such as children, diabetics or people with kidney impairment. Contrary to law, they made the criteria for considering health data so stringent that reasonable concerns for safety were eliminated. Data showing positive correlations between fluoride exposure and genetic effects in almost all laboratory tests were discounted. By selective use of data, they fit science to the desired outcome. They reported to the Administrator data demonstrating that dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect, but then hid this information from the pubic when the Administrator decided to call dental fluorosis a "cosmetic" effect. The National Institute for Dental Research had warned EPA that admitting dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect would be contrary to the long standing policy of the Public Health Service that fluoridation at 1 mg/l is totally safe.  EPA had already admitted in the Federal Register that objectionable dental fluorosis can occur at levels as low as 0.7 mg/l.

EPA management based its standard on only one health effect: crippling skeletal fluorosis. In setting the safe level at 4 mg/l, however, they ignored data showing that healthy individuals were at risk of developing crippling skeletal fluorosis if these individuals happened to drink large quantities of water at the "safe" level of 4 mg/l.  EPA's own data showed that some people drink as much as 5.5 liters/day.  If these people ingested this amount of water containing  4 mg/l of fluoride, they would receive a daily dose of 22 mg. This exceeds the minimum dose necessary to cause crippling skeletal fluorosis ("20 mg/day for 20 years") according to EPA and the Public Health Service. This situation is made worse by the fact that there are additional sources of fluoride exposure, such as toothpaste, tea, etc. Even more unsettling is the fact that there is not sound scientific basis for a 20 mg/day threshold. The threshold is probably lower.  there is evidence, ignored by EPA, that exposure to fluoride at 1 mg/l in drinking water over a long period of time may calcify ligaments and tendons causing arthritic pains (the earliest clinical signs of skeletal fluorosis).

EPA management also relied upon a report from the Surgeon General which they knew was false. This report claimed to represent the conclusions of an expert panel (on which EPA was an observer) when, in fact, the concerns of this panel was for the effects of fluoride in the bones of children,  for its effects on the heart, for dental fluorosis, and for the overall lack of scientific data on the effects of fluoride in U.S. drinking water were deleted. There are indications that a number of important conclusions of the panel were altered without their knowledge or approval.

This instance of scientific fraud is one example of the unethical and unprofessional atmosphere existing at EPA. There are many others. The fluoride standard however is particularly deplorable because of the widespread complicity of a number of different Federal agencies at the very highest levels in distorting the assessment of fluoride's health effects, and thus threatening public health. The Union's involvement in this is not a matter of meddling in the rights of management to dictate policy. We are attempting to correct a clear cut example of management abuse of authority. We insist that professionals have a right to an ethical and professional workplace.

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

Fluoride 10 cents or $10 million - You decide

Instigated by organized dentistry, States collectively are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to protect, promote and build extensive fluoridation systems for public water supplies. The reason, they claim, is so that poor children. whom most dentists won't treat, get a daily fluoride dose ostensibly to protect their teeth from tooth decay. However, low-income children are suffering from untreated tooth decay not fluoride deficiency. Fluoride pills cost as little as 12 cents each and, in fact, are free in some states to Medicaid patients.   Fluoridating the water supply puts water employees at risk, corrodes equipment, requires new buildings and forces water operators to fulfill all the following requirements (in Utah anyway) to fluoridate the entire water supply even though poor children drink a fraction of 1% of the water.

 A public water system that adds fluoride to drinking water shall comply with the fluoridation facility design and construction requirements of this section.

The following requirements apply to all types of fluoridation.

(a) Chemicals and Materials.

(i) All chemicals used for fluoridation shall be certified to comply with ANSI/NSF Standard 60.
(ii) Materials used for fluoridation equipment shall be compatible with chemicals used in the fluoridation process.
(iii) Metal parts used in fluoridation equipment and present in the fluoridation room shall be corrosion resistant.
(iv) Lead weights shall not be used in fluoride chemical solutions to keep pump suction lines at the bottom of a day or bulk storage tank.

(b) Chemical Storage.

(i) Fluoride chemicals shall be stored in covered or sealed containers, inside a building, and away from heat.
(ii) Fluoride chemicals shall not be stored with incompatible chemicals.
(iii) Bags or other containers for dry materials shall be stored on pallets.
(iv) Fiber drums for storing dry materials shall be kept closed to keep out moisture.
(v) A solution tank shall be labeled to identify the contents of the tank.

(c) Secondary Containment.

(i) Secondary containment shall be provided for tanks containing corrosive fluoride solutions.
(ii) Secondary containment shall be sized to contain the quantity of solution handled.
(iii) Secondary containment shall be designed to be acid resistant.

(d) Means to Measure.

(i) A means to measure the flow of treated water shall be provided.
(ii) A means shall be provided to measure the solution level in a tank and the quantity of the chemical used.
(iii) A sampling point shall be provided downstream of the fluoridation facility for measuring the fluoride level of treated water.

(e) Fluoride Feed Pump.

(i) Sizing of fluoride feed pumps shall consider prevention of fluoride overfeed and operation efficiency.
(ii) A fluoride feed pump shall have an anti-siphon device.

(f) Electrical Outlet for Fluoride Feed Pump.

(i) The electrical outlet used for a fluoride feed pump shall have interlock protection by being wired electrically in series with the well or service pump, such that the feed pump is only activated when the well or service pump is on.
(ii) The fluoride feed pump shall not be plugged into a continuously active ("hot") electrical outlet.

(g) Fluoride Injection.

(i) The fluoride injection line shall enter at a point in the lower one-third of the water pipe, and the end of the injection line shall be in the lower half of the water pipe.
(ii) The fluoride injection point shall allow adequate mixing.
(iii) The fluoride injection point shall not be located upstream of lime softening, ion exchange, or other processes that affect the fluoride level.
(iv) Each injector shall be selected based on the quantity of fluoride to be added, water flow, back pressure, and injector operating pressure.
(v) If injecting fluoride under pressure, a corporation stop and a safety chain shall be used at the fluoride injection point to secure the injection line.
(vi) An anti-siphon device shall be provided for all fluoride feed lines at the injection point.

(h) Minimize Fluoride Overfeed.

(i) In addition to the feed pump control, a secondary control mechanism shall be provided to minimize the possibility of fluoride overfeed. It may be a day tank, liquid level sensor, SCADA control, a flow switch, etc.
(ii) For fluoridation facilities that do not have operators on site, a day tank is required to minimize fluoride overfeed, unless two alternative secondary controls are provided.

(i) Housing. Fluoridation equipment shall be housed in a secure building that is adequately sized for handling and storing fluoride chemicals.

(j) Heating, Lighting, Ventilation.

(i) The fluoridation building shall be heated, lighted and ventilated to assure proper operation of the equipment and safety of operator.
(ii) The ventilation in the fluoride operating area shall provide at least six complete room-air changes per hour.
(iii) The fluoride operating area shall be vented to outside atmosphere and away from air intakes.
(iv) Separate switches for fans and lights in the fluoride operating area shall be provided. The switches shall be located outside of, or near, the entrance to the fluoride operating area, and shall be protected from vandalism.

(k) Cross Connection Control. Cross connections shall be eliminated by physical separation, an air gap, or an approved and properly operating backflow prevention assembly.

(3) Additional Requirements for Fluorosilicic Acid Installations.

(a) Fluorosilicic acid shall not be diluted manually on site before injection.

(b) Solution Tank Vents.

(i) A solution tank shall be adequately vented to the outside atmosphere away from air intakes, above grade, and where least susceptible to contamination.
(ii) A bulk tank shall not share a vent with a day tank if there is a risk of solution overflow from the bulk tank to the day tank.
(iii) A non-corrodible fine mesh (No. 14 or finer) screen shall be placed over the discharge end of a vent.

(c) If separate rooms are provided in a fluoride building constructed after January 1, 2017, the design shall include a view window between the control room and the fluorosilicic acid operating area.

(d) Emergency eyewash stations and showers shall be provided.

(e) A neutralizing chemical shall be available on site to handle small quantity accidental acid spills.

(f) The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required when handling fluorosilicic acid, and shall include the following:
(i) Full-face shield and splash-proof safety goggles
(ii) Long gauntlet acid-resistant rubber or neoprene gloves with cuffs
(iii) Acid-resistant rubber or neoprene aprons
(iv) Rubber boots

(4) Additional Requirements for Fluoride Saturator Installations.

(a) A water meter shall be provided on the make-up water line for a saturator so that calculations can be made to confirm that the proper amounts of fluoride solution are being fed. This meter and the master meter shall be read daily and the results recorded.

(b) The minimum depth of undissolved fluoride chemical required to maintain a saturated solution shall be marked on the outside of the saturator tank.

(c) The saturator shall not be operated in a manner that undissolved chemical is drawn into the pump suction line.

(d) The make-up water supply line shall, at a minimum, either terminate at least two pipe diameters above the solution tank or have backflow protection.

(e) Make-up Water Softening.
(i) The make-up water used for sodium fluoride saturators shall be softened whenever the hardness exceeds 75 mg/L.
(ii) A sediment filter (20 mesh) shall be installed in the make-up water line going to the saturator. The filter shall be placed between the softener and the water meter.

(f) Dust Control. Provisions shall be made to minimize the creation of fluoride dust during the transfer of dry fluoride compounds.
(i) Air exhausted from fluoride handling equipment shall discharge through a dust filter to the atmosphere outside of the building.
(ii) Provisions shall be made to minimize dust when disposing of empty bags, drums or barrels.
(iii) A floor drain shall be provided to facilitate floor cleaning.

(g) Emergency eyewash shall be provided.

(h) The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required when handling dry chemicals and shall include the following:
(i) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved particulate respirator with a soft rubber face-to-mask seal and replaceable cartridges
(ii) Chemical dust-resistant safety goggles
(iii) Acid-resistant gloves
(iv) Acid-resistant rubber or neoprene aprons
(v) Rubber boots

(5) Additional Requirements for Fluoride Dry Feed Installations.

(a) Volumetric and gravimetric dry feeders shall include a solution tank.

(b) A mechanical mixer shall be installed in the solution tank.

(c) Dust Control. Provisions shall be made to minimize the creation of fluoride dust during the transfer of dry fluoride compounds.
(i) If a hopper is provided, it shall be equipped with a dust filter and an exhaust fan that places the hopper under negative pressure.
(ii) Air exhausted from fluoride handling equipment shall discharge through a dust filter to the atmosphere outside of the building.
(iii) Provisions shall be made to minimize dust when disposing of empty bags, drums or barrels.
(iv) A floor drain shall be provided to facilitate floor cleaning.

(d) Emergency eyewash shall be provided.

(e) The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required when handling dry chemicals and shall include the following:
(i) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved particulate respirator with a soft rubber face-to-mask seal and replaceable cartridges
(ii) Chemical dust-resistant safety goggles
(iii) Acid-resistant gloves
(iv) Acid-resistant rubber or neoprene aprons
(v) Rubber boots

Friday, September 16, 2016

Fluoridation is a National Disgrace

The country is plagued by industrial wastes infiltrating public water supplies causing  Americans to avoid their tap water using environmentally unfriendly bottled water or water purifiers instead. So it's even more  illogical to purposely add phosphate fertilizer's industrial waste, hydrofluosilicic acid, into public water supplies. It's nickname is fluoride - the process called fluoridation. And it's supposed to prevent tooth decay. But it isn't.  And all fluorides are not the same, as is often claimed.

Because toxic fluoride industrial emissions killed farm animals and crops in the last century, it’s now illegal for industries to emit fluoride into the atmosphere. The phosphate fertilizer industry dutifully captures its fluoride wastes before they escape from smokestacks. Also captured in the process are trace amounts of lead, arsenic, and other nasty toxins.  

Unbelievably, this is the chemical brew that is trucked as hazardous waste into every nook and cranny of America and then injected unpurified into public water supplies - the same water supplies that process, manufacture, mixes with and cooks many foods and beverages consumed by Americans who avoid their fluoridated tap water for health concerns. 

We understand that "acceptable" trace amounts of toxins are present in bottled water and some foods, also  But it doesn’t make sense to add them purposely into water supplies, no matter how low the dose of these cumulative toxins is, 99% of which is not ingested but flushed down the toilet, etc.

Hydrofluosilicic acid, itself, has neither been safety tested in humans or animals nor has its synergistic effect been tested with other water additives or impurities. The US National Toxicology Program is just now studying fluoride’s toxic brain effects The American public, especially our children, are guinea pigs in this ongoing experiment.

Sadly, fluoride has also been shown to enhance lead absorption. 

According to a retired EPA scientist, “If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant, if it gets into a lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing!”-Dr. J. William Hirzy, EPA scientist

Several cities  stopped fluoridation simply because the departments of health could not provide any safety studies for hydrofluosilicic acid as in Poughkeepsie,NY  and Selmer,Tennessee

In fact, after Poughkeepsie stopped fluoridation in 2008, tooth decay rates steadily declined, according to NYU researchers.  And plotting NYS tooth decay rates against county fluoridation rates neither shows any evidence that fluoridation is linked to less tooth decay nor that it closes the disparity gap between high and low income children.

Despite millions of New Yorkers rejecting or stopping fluoridation, the NYS Department of Health is hell-bent on forcing it down our throats and then forcing us to pay for it, according to J.V. Kumar former NYS Dental Bureau Chief of the NYS Dept of Health in his presentation to the American Dental AssociationFluoridation Celebration.  

First they gutted, a state wide home rule bill.  the home rule bill was was passed into law in the 1990's with bipartisan support that went though the normal channels of legislation into law.
It took power from individual bureaucrats to mandate fluoridation and put it into the hands  of legislative bodies that own their own water system

But the 2015-2016 approved budget changed that law, without citizen notification or input, and takes independent authority away from legislators and puts complicated rules into place for stopping fluoridation and gets bureaucrats back into the decision. The new law is so complicated that an upstate NY community needed to know what it had to do if it wanted to stop fluoridation but Dept of Health employees still needed to figure it out even though NYS has an employee dedicated to fluoridation issues.

Also approved in that budget was millions of dollars in grants to instigate and upgrade fluoridation equipment – sometimes with pressure as is being done in Cortland NY which has previously rejected fluoridation.

The NYS Dept of Health is also wasting more money conducting Fluoridation Spokesperson Training sessions to teach those interested about how to defend, promote or lobby for fluoridation.  No one opposed is allowed to attend.  I was asked to leave such a meeting at SUNY Farmingdale last year. This amounts to government funded lobbying which is supposed to be illegal.

Fluoridation is based on old time beliefs that modern science has disproved.

 You’ve got to look at the science. Hundreds of millions of dollars are changing hands across the US hiring PR agencies and operatives, conducting political strategies, forming new groups and funding pro-fluoridation activists often with the caveat they don’t speak about health risks.  Some states actually have a dedicated fluoridation employee with all its associated costs besides salaries and benefits.

Those of us opposed to fluoridation work on a shoestring budget.  All we have to offer is the truth.

The FDA regulates fluoride in toothpaste as drugs for topical application; but it says fluoride supplements meant for ingestion are unapproved drugs

How did this happen?

At the beginning of the last century, it was believed that ingested fluoride was an essential nutrient to reduce tooth decay

Natural calcium-fluoridated water was originally found to be the cause of brown stained teeth (dental fluorosis) from ingesting too much fluoride while teeth were forming under the gums. Since those with brown teeth had less tooth decay, researchers assumed that fluoride must also  be an essential nutrient to prevent cavities. We now know it’s the calcium and healthy diets that made their teeth decay resistant. Fluoride is just the tooth discoloring culprit and still is today.

Calcium fluoride is much less toxic than sodium fluoride or hydrofluosilicic acid.  In fact, calcium is the antidote for fluoride poisoning.

Based on those early 1900’s findings, human experiments were set up first in Grand Rapids Michigan for tooth effects and then in Newburgh, NY, for health effects in 1945.

So, Newburgh children were the first guinea pigs in the health experiment to see if injecting sodium fluoride into the water supply could make them sick.  It did -  but that is ignored.  In fact, after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh children had more tooth decay and more dental fluorosis than never-fluoridated Kingston New York which acted as the control city.

The Newburgh/Kingston experiment can and has been torn apart by HS biology classes.  For example, only school children were studied – not toddlers or adults.  The experiment was declared a success after five years – before the teeth of those born into the experiment had even erupted.  Anyone sick two weeks prior to examination were excluded thereby missing the very children who may have been sickened by fluoride. Cancer, brain and long term effects were never even considered.

In 1955, ten years after the K/N experiment began and five years after it was declared a success, a research paper from the State University of New York reported that children in fluoridated Newburgh had more cortical bone defects, anemia and earlier puberty than non-fluoridated Kingston.

This is the foundation by which you are told fluoridation is safe.

It was also a time when essential nutrients were discovered to “prevent” disease for example:  consuming a diet deficient in Vitamin C causes scurvy –  a vitamin D deficient diet causes rickets..  However, consuming a diet that doesn’t include fluoride does not cause tooth decay. 
If fluoridation won't be banned than governments must stop adding toxin laden hydrofluosilicic acid into the water and find a safer, non-contaminated source.

Offering millions of dollars to communities to encourage the addition of tainted industrial waste into public water supplies should be halted unless the company that supplies the chemicals can provide evidence that their product has been tested and that they vouch for its safety.

The money you save could be used to clean up water supplies accidentally invaded by industrial toxic pollutants.  New York City spends about $24 million yearly on fluoridation for chemicals, equipment repair, manpower, etc, according to a FOIA request.  It cost Hoosick Falls,NY, about that much to begin the clean up of toxic chemicals that infiltrated its water supply and more millions are required. 

So many communities are begging for funds to clean up their water supplies.  It's time to stop adding to their burden by purposely injecting hydrofluosilicic acid into the water supplies and use the money saved to actually clean up the water supplies instead of increasing its toxicity.

Governments need to give us the freedom to choose. Fluoride, like all drugs, has adverse health effects. The water supply should never be used as a drug delivery system, prescribed by legislator, delivered by water engineers and dosed based on thirst and not age, health, weight, need or the presence or absence of teeth.

Fluoridation is newly framed as benefiting the poor.  But the evidence shows that fluoride is useless to low income children with minority children experience more of fluoride toxic effects - dental fluorosis.

Rotten diets make rotten teeth, with or without fluoride, as proven in the 1930’s by dentist Weston Price and reported in his book “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.”  It's confirmed by recent science.

So after, 71 years of fluoridation reaching record numbers of Americans, 61 years of fluoridated toothpaste, a glut of fluoridated dental products both at the dentist and over the counter (and in higher concentrations), a fluoride-saturated food supply, fluoride containing medicines, yet tooth decay is still a national epidemic and dental fluorosis is becoming the new dental health epidemic.  

 But corporations who profit from tooth decay and fluoride sales have become multi-billion dollar, multi international conglomerates. And new dental schools are opening 

Tooth decay is big business!  And fluoridation doesn’t hurt dentists’ bottom line.