        |
The
information on this website is not a substitute for
diagnosis and treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.
The Challenge of Eliminating Fluoride
Given all the scientific challenges to the idea of the safety of fluoride, why does it remain a protected contaminant? As Susan Pare of the Center for Health Action asks, "...even if fluoride in the water did reduce tooth decay, which it does not, how can the EPA allow a substance more toxic than Alar, red dye #3, and vinyl chloride to be injected purposely into drinking water?"(207)
This is certainly a logical question and, with all the good science that seems to exist on the subject, you would think that there would be a great deal of interest in getting fluoride out of our water supply. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case. As Dr. William Marcus, a senior science advisor in the EPA's Office of Drinking Water, has found, the top governmental priority has been to sweep the facts under the rug and, if need be, to suppress truth-tellers. Marcus explains (208) that fluoride is one of the chemicals the EPA specifically regulates, and that he was following the data coming in on fluoride very carefully when a determination was going to be made on whether the levels should be changed. He discovered that the data were not being heeded. But that was only the beginning of the story for him. Marcus recounts what happened:
"The studies that were done by Botel Northwest showed that there was an increased level of bone cancer and other types of cancer in animals....in that same study, there were very rare liver cancers, according to the board-certified veterinary pathologists at the contractor, Botel. Those really were very upsetting because they were hepatocholangeal carcinomas, very rare liver cancers....Then there were several other kinds of cancers that were found in the jaw and other places.
"I felt at that time that the reports were alarming. They showed that the levels of fluoride that can cause cancers in animals are actually lower than those levels ingested in people (who take lower amounts but for longer periods of time).
"I went to a meeting that was held in Research Triangle Park, in April 1990, in which the National Toxicology Program was presenting their review of the study. I went with several colleagues of mine, one of whom was a board-certified veterinary pathologist who originally reported hepatocholangeal carcinoma as a separate entity in rats and mice. I asked him if he would look at the slides to see if that really was a tumor or if the pathologists at Botel had made an error. He told me after looking at the slides that, in fact, it was correct.
"At the meeting, every one of the cancers reported by the contractor had been downgraded by the National Toxicology Program. I have been in the toxicology business looking at studies of this nature for nearly 25 years and I have never before seen every single cancer endpoint downgraded.... I found that very suspicious and went to see an investigator in the Congress at the suggestion of my friend, Bob Carton. This gentleman and his staff investigated very thoroughly and found out that the scientists at the National Toxicology Program down at Research Triangle Park had been coerced by their superiors to change their findings."
Once Dr. Marcus acted on his findings, something ominous started to happen in his life:
"...I wrote an internal memorandum and gave it to my supervisors. I waited for a month without hearing anything. Usually, you get a feedback in a week or so. I wrote another memorandum to a person who was my second-line supervisor explaining that if there was evena slight chance of increased cancer in the general population, since 140 million people were potentially ingesting this material, that the deaths could be in the many thousands. Then I gave a copy of the memorandum to the Fluoride Work Group, who waited some time and then released it to the press.
"Once it got into the press all sorts of things started happening at EPA -- I was getting disciplinary threats, being isolated, and all kinds of things which ultimately resulted in them firing me on March 15, 1992."(209)
In order to be reinstated at work, Dr. Marcus took his case to court. In the process, he learned that the government had engaged in various illegal activities, including 70 felony counts, in order to get him fired. At the same time, those who committed perjury were not held accountable for it. In fact, they were rewarded for their efforts:
"When we finally got the EPA to the courtroom...they admitted to doing several things to get me fired. We had notes of a meeting...that showed that fluoride was one of the main topics discussed and that it was agreed that they would fire me with the help of the Inspector General. When we got them on the stand and showed them the memoranda, they finally remembered and said, oh yes, we lied about that in our previous statements.
"Then...they admitted to shredding more than 70 documents that they had in hand - Freedom of Information requests. That's a felony.... In addition, they charged me with stealing time from the government. They...tried to show...that I had been doing private work on government time and getting paid for it. When we came to court, I was able to show that the time cards they produced were forged, and forged by the Inspector General's staff...."(210)
For all his efforts, Dr. Marcus was rehired, but nothing else has changed: "The EPA was ordered to rehire me, which they did. They were given a whole series of requirements to be met, such as paying me my back pay, restoring my leave, privileges, and sick leave and annual leave. The only thing they've done is put me back to work. They haven't given me any of those things that they were required to do."(211)
What is at the core of such ruthless tactics? John Yiamouyiannis feels that the central concern of government is to protect industry, and that the motivating force behind fluoride use is the need of certain businesses to dump their toxic waste products somewhere. They try to be inconspicuous in the disposal process and not make waves. "As is normal, the solution to pollution is dilution. You poison everyone a little bit rather than poison a few people a lot. This way, people don't know what's going on."(212) Since the Public Health Service has promoted the fluoride myth for over 50 years, they're concerned about protecting their reputation. So scientists like Dr. Marcus, who know about the dangers, are intimidated into keeping silent. Otherwise, they jeopardize their careers.
Dr. John Lee elaborates: "Back in 1943, the PHS staked their professional careers on the benefits and safety of fluoride. It has since become bureaucratized. Any public health official who criticizes fluoride, or even hints that perhaps it was an unwise decision, is at risk of losing his career entirely. This has happened time and time again. Public health officials such as Dr. Gray in British Columbia and Dr. Colquhoun in New Zealand found no benefit from fluoridation. When they reported these results, they immediately lost their careers.... This is what happens - the public health officials who speak out against fluoride are at great risk of losing their careers on the spot."(213)
Yiamouyiannis adds that for the authorities to admit that they're wrong would be devastating. "It would show that their reputations really don't mean that much.... They don't have the scientific background. As Ralph Nader once said, if they admit they're wrong on fluoridation, people would ask, and legitimately so, what else have they not told us right?"(214)
Accompanying a loss in status would be a tremendous loss in revenue. Yiamouyiannis points out that "the indiscriminate careless handling of fluoride has a lot of companies, such as Exxon, U.S. Steel, and Alcoa, making tens of billions of dollars in extra profits at our expense.... For them to go ahead now and admit that this is bad, this presents a problem, a threat, would mean tens of billions of dollars in lost profit because they would have to handle fluoride properly. Fluoride is present in everything from phosphate fertilizers to cracking agents for the petroleum industry." (215)
Fluoride could only be legally disposed of at a great cost to industry. As Dr. Bill Marcus explains, "There are prescribed methods for disposal and they're very expensive. Fluoride is a very potent poison. It's a registered pesticide, used for killing rats or mice.... If it were to be disposed of, it would require a class-one landfill. That would cost the people who are producing aluminum or fertilizer about $7000+ per 5000- to 6000-gallon truckload to dispose of it. It's highly corrosive."(216)
Another problem is that the U.S. judicial system, even when convinced of the dangers, is powerless to change policy. Yiamouyiannis tells of his involvement in court cases in Pennsylvania and Texas in which, while the judges were convinced that fluoride was a health hazard, they did not have the jurisdiction to grant relief from fluoridation. That would have to be done, it was ultimately found, through the legislative process.(217)
Dr. Hirzy, vice president of the union that represents the scientists who work for the EPA, cites three landmark cases in which judges with "no interest except in the finding of fact and administering justice"(218) ruled against fluoridation. In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas.
He summarized his findings as follows.
"In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary..."(219)
"Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impugn the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation."(220)
In an Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: "This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature's determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health."(221)
Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: "[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man."
Dr. Hirzy, himself a toxicologist and an expert in environmental management and risk assessment, comments: "The significance of Judge Flaherty's statement and his and the other two judges' findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified."(222)
Interestingly, the judiciary seems to have more power to effect change in other countries. Yiamouyiannis states that when he presented the same technical evidence in Scotland, the Scottish court outlawed fluoridation based on the evidence.(223)
Indeed, most of western Europe has rejected fluoridation on the grounds that it is unsafe. In 1971, after 11 years of testing, Sweden's Nobel Medical Institute recommended against fluoridation, and the process was banned. The Netherlands outlawed the practice in 1976, after 23 years of tests. France decided against it after consulting with its Pasteur Institute(224) and Germany rejected the practice because the recommended dosage of 1 ppm was "too close to the dose at which long-term damage to the human body is to be expected."(225) Dr. Lee sums it up: "All of western Europe, except one or two test towns in Spain, has abandoned fluoride as a public health plan. It is not put in the water anywhere. They all established test cities and found that the benefits did not occur and the toxicity was evident."(226)
But Europe is not the sole bastion of sanity in the fluoridation arena. Several municipalities in the United States have taken an enlightened stance on the issue. In 1997, the Natick (MA) Fluoridation Study Committee submitted a comprehensive report to the Town and the Board of Selectmen, overwhelming recommending rejection of fluoridation of the town's water. The committee consisted of scientists, academics, and citizens of the town of Natick. The committee summarized its findings as follows:
* Recent studies of the incidence of cavities in children show little to no difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
* Ten to thirty percent (10-30%) of Natick's children will have very mild to mild dental fluorosis if Natick fluoridates its water (up from probably 6% now). Approximately 1% of Natick's children will have moderate or severe dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis can cause great concern for the affected family and may result in additional dental bills. It should not be dismissed as a "cosmetic" effect.
* Fluoride adversely effects the central nervous system, causing behavioral changes and cognitive deficits. These effects are observed at fluoride doses that some people in the US actually receive.
* There is good evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant, meaning that fluoride effects the nervous system of the developing fetus at doses that are not toxic to the mother. The developmental neurotoxicity would be manifest as lower IQ and behavioral changes.
* Water fluoridation shows a positive correlation with increased hip fracture rates in persons 65 years of age and older, based on two recent epidemiology studies.
* Some adults are hypersensitive to even small quantities of fluoride, including that contained in fluoridated water. At least one such person is a Natick resident.
* The impact of fluoride on human reproduction at the levels received from environmental exposures is a serious concern. A recent epidemiology study shows a correlation between decreasing annual fertility rate in humans and increasing levels of fluoride in drinking water.
* Animal bioassays suggest that fluoride is a carcinogen, especially for tissues such as bone (osteosarcoma) and liver. The potential for carcinogenicity is supported by fluoride's genotoxicity and pharmacokinetic properties. Human epidemiology studies to date are inconclusive, but no appropriate major study has been conducted.
* Fluoride inhibits or otherwise alters the actions of a long list of enzymes important to metabolism, growth, and cell regulation.
* Sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid, the two chemicals Natick intends to use to fluoridate the water supply, have been associated with increased concentrations of lead in tap water and increased blood lead levels in children, based on case reports and a new, as-yet-unpublished study.
* If Natick fluoridates its water supply at the proposed level, most children under the age of three will daily receive more fluoride than is recommended for them.
The scientific literature supporting these findings is summarized in the full report which also discusses a variety of non-health related concerns that have been raised about water fluoridation.
Conclusion:
The Committee reached the firm conclusion that the risks of overexposure to fluoride far outweigh any current benefit of water fluoridation.
Recommendations:
1. The Natick Fluoridation Study Committee unanimously and emphatically recommends that the town of Natick NOT fluoridate the town water supply.
2. The Natick Fluoridation Study Committee unanimously and emphatically recommends that the Board of Selectmen take appropriate action to ensure that fluoridation of the town water supply does not take place.(227)
Natick is not an isolated case. The town of Bishopville, SC recently voted to discontinue fluoridation. Eureka Springs, Arkansas decided not to begin a proposed fluoridation program. "The citizens of Eureka Springs don't want to be medicated against their will," Mayor Beau Satori said. "They just want fine-tasting water."(228) In fact, the Fluoride Action Network list over 100 municipalities in the US and Canada that have rejected or discontinued fluoride since 1990.(229)
Isn't it time the United States as a whole followed this example? While the answer is obvious, it is also apparent that government policy is unlikely to change without public support. We therefore must communicate with legislators, and insist on one of our most precious resources - pure, unadulterated drinking water. Yiamouyiannis urges all American people to do so. He emphasizes the immediacy of the problem:
"There is no question with regard to fluoridation of public water supplies. It is absolutely unsafe...and should be stopped immediately. This is causing more destruction to human health than any other single substance added purposely or inadvertently to the water supply. We're talking about 35,000 excess deaths a year...10,000 cancer deaths a year...130 million people who are being chronically poisoned. We're not talking about dropping dead after drinking a glass of fluoridated water.... It takes its toll on human health and life, glass after glass."(230)
Dr. Hirzy points to the absurdity of government policy on fluoride. The phosphate fertilizer industry captures hydrofluosilicic acid and uses what would otherwise be an air or water pollutant as a low-cost source of fluoride for water authorities. 'If this material comes out of a smoke stack it's an air pollutant; if it goes out the drain pipe into the river it's a water pollutant. But it is magically converted into some sort of beneficial agent when put in a tank wagon and bled into the drinking water. It's a remarkable transformation."(231)
There are two moral issues in the debate that has largely escaped notice. The first is that, as columnist James Kilpatrick observes, it is "the right of each person to control the drugs he or she takes." Kilpatrick calls fluoridation compulsory mass medication, a procedure that violates the principles of medical ethics.(232) A New York Times editorial agrees:
"In light of the uncertainty, critics [of fluoridation] argue that administrative bodies are unjustified in imposing fluoridation on communities without obtaining public consent.... The real issue here is not just the scientific debate. The question is whether any establishment has the right to decide that benefits outweigh risks and impose involuntary medication on an entire population. In the case of fluoridation, the dental establishment has made opposition to fluoridation seem intellectually disreputable. Some people regard that as tyranny." (233)
But there's a second moral issue that is even broader. That is, can we start being honest with each other, or have we gone too far? Can we stand up against political influence and corruption, and do what is really best for ourselves, our health, and the planet? The issue is no longer whether there is adequate science to make us question fluoride's safety. There is more than enough scientific evidence to support a total ban on fluoride. But industry and the our legislative bodies that are dominated by special interest groups may never get around to admitting the obvious danger, unless we demand it.
The official stance on the fluoride issue reflects a consistent pattern of denial that begins in the earliest years of the twentieth century, with industry's support and encouragement for water fluoridation and continues to this day with propaganda campaigns, scientific disinformation, and out and out attacks on those who have attempted to let the truth be known.
It is time to stop playing games. We must speak out now, and let our leaders know that we want the truth to come out. Otherwise we will have to ask ourselves whether we are capable ever again being honest again.