-
- There's nothing like a glass of cool,
clear water to quench one's thirst. But the next time you or your child
reaches for one, you might want to question whether that water is in fact,
too toxic to drink. If your water is fluoridated, the answer may well be
yes.
-
- For decades, we have been told a lie,
a lie that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans
and the weakening of the immune systems of tens of millions more. This
lie is called fluoridation. A process we were led to believe was a safe
and effective method of protecting teeth from decay is in fact a fraud.
In recent years it's been shown that fluoridation is neither essential
for good health nor protective of teeth. What it does is poison the body.
We should all at this point be asking how and why public health policy
and the American media continue to live with and perpetuate this scientific
sham.
-
- How to Market a Toxic Waste
-
- "We would not purposely add arsenic
to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add
fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly
less toxic than arsenic."1
-
- These words of Dr. John Yiamouyiannis
may come as a shock to you because, if you're like most Americans, you
have positive associations with fluoride. You may envision tooth protection,
strong bones, and a government that cares about your dental needs. What
you've probably never been told is that the fluoride added to drinking
water and toothpaste is a crude industrial waste product of the aluminum
and fertilizer industries, and a substance toxic enough to be used as rat
poison. How is it that Americans have learned to love an environmental
hazard? This phenomenon can be attributed to a carefully planned marketing
program begun even before Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first community
to officially fluoridate its drinking water in 1945.2 As a result of this
ongoing campaign, nearly two-thirds of the nation has enthusiastically
followed Grand Rapids' example. But this push for fluoridation has less
to do with a concern for America's health than with industry's penchant
to expand at the expense of our nation's well-being.
-
- The first thing you have to understand
about fluoride is that it's the problem child of industry. Its toxicity
was recognized at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when, in
the 1850s iron and copper factories discharged it into the air and poisoned
plants, animals, and people.3 The problem was exacerbated in the 1920s
when rapid industrial growth meant massive pollution. Medical writer Joel
Griffiths explains that "it was abundantly clear to both industry
and government that spectacular U.S. industrial expansion - and the economic
and military power and vast profits it promised - would necessitate releasing
millions of tons of waste fluoride into the environment."4 Their biggest
fear was that "if serious injury to people were established, lawsuits
alone could prove devastating to companies, while public outcry could force
industry-wide government regulations, billions in pollution-control costs,
and even mandatory changes in high-fluoride raw materials and profitable
technologies."5
-
- At first, industry could dispose of fluoride
legally only in small amounts by selling it to insecticide and rat poison
manufacturers.6 Then a commercial outlet was devised in the 1930s when
a connection was made between water supplies bearing traces of fluoride
and lower rates of tooth decay. Griffiths writes that this was not a scientific
breakthrough, but rather part of a "public disinformation campaign"
by the aluminum industry "...to convince the public that fluoride
was safe and good...." Industry's need prompted Alcoa-funded scientist
Gerald J. Cox to announce that "The present trend toward complete
removal of fluoride from water may need some reversal."7 Griffiths
writes:
-
- "The big news in Cox's announcement
was that this 'apparently worthless by-product' had not only been proved
safe (in low doses), but actually beneficial; it might reduce cavities
in children. A proposal was in the air to add fluoride to the entire nation's
drinking water. While the dose to each individual would be low, 'fluoridation'
on a national scale would require the annual addition of hundreds of thousands
of tons of fluoride to the country's drinking water.
-
- "Government and industry -especially
Alcoa - strongly supported intentional water fluoridation...[it] made possible
a master public relations stroke - one that could keep scientists and the
public off fluoride's case for years to come. If the leaders of dentistry,
medicine, and public health could be persuaded to endorse fluoride in the
public's drinking water, proclaiming to the nation that there was a 'wide
margin of safety,' how were they going to turn around later and say industry's
fluoride pollution was dangerous?
-
- "As for the public, if fluoride
could be introduced as a health enhancing substance that should be added
to the environment for the children's sake, those opposing it would look
like quacks and lunatics....
-
- "Back at the Mellon Institute, Alcoa's
Pittsburgh Industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. Alcoa-sponsored
biochemist Gerald J. Cox immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study
and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that 'The case should
be regarded as proved.' In a historic moment in 1939, the first public
proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made -
not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working
for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims."8
-
- Once the plan was put into action, industry
was buoyant. They had finally found the channel for fluoride that they
were looking for, and they were even cheered on by dentists, government
agencies, and the public. Chemical Week, a publication for the chemical
industry, described the tenor of the times: all over the country, slide
rules are getting warm as waterworks engineers figure the cost of adding
fluoride to their water supplies." They are riding a trend urged upon
them, by the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association,
the State Dental Health Directors, various state and local health bodies,
and vocal women's clubs from coast to coast. It adds up to a nice piece
of business on all sides and many firms are cheering the PHS and similar
groups as they plump for increasing adoption of fluoridation."9
-
- Such overwhelming acceptance allowed
government and industry to proceed hastily, albeit irresponsibly. The Grand
Rapids experiment was supposed to take 15 years, during which time health
benefits and hazards were to be studied. In 1946, however, just one year
into the experiment, six more U.S. cities adopted the process. By 1947,
87 more communities were treated; popular demand was the official reason
for this unscientific haste.
-
- The general public and its leaders did
support the cause, but only after a massive government public relations
campaign spearheaded by Edward L. Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays,
a public relations pioneer who has been called "the original spin
doctor,"10 was a masterful PR strategist. As a result of his influence,
Griffiths writes, "Almost overnight...the popular image of fluoride
- which at the time was being widely sold as rat and bug poison - became
that of a beneficial provider of gleaming smiles, absolutely safe, and
good for children, bestowed by a benevolent paternal government. Its opponents
were permanently engraved on the public mind as crackpots and right-wing
loonies."11
-
- Griffiths explains that while opposition
to fluoridation is usually associated with right-wingers, this picture
is not totally accurate. He provides an interesting historical perspective
on the anti-fluoridation stance:
-
- "Fluoridation attracted opponents
from every point on the continuum of politics and sanity. The prospect
of the government mass-medicating the water supplies with a well-known
rat poison to prevent a nonlethal disease flipped the switches of delusionals
across the country - as well as generating concern among responsible scientists,
doctors, and citizens.
-
- "Moreover, by a fortuitous twist
of circumstances, fluoride's natural opponents on the left were alienated
from the rest of the opposition. Oscar Ewing, a Federal Security Agency
administrator, was a Truman "fair dealer" who pushed many progressive
programs such as nationalized medicine. Fluoridation was lumped with his
proposals. Inevitably, it was attacked by conservatives as a manifestation
of "creeping socialism," while the left rallied to its support.
Later during the McCarthy era, the left was further alienated from the
opposition when extreme right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society
and the Ku Klux Klan, raved that fluoridation was a plot by the Soviet
Union and/or communists in the government to poison America's brain cells.
-
- "It was a simple task for promoters,
under the guidance of the 'original spin doctor,' to paint all opponents
as deranged - and they played this angle to the hilt....
-
- "Actually, many of the strongest
opponents originally started out as proponents, but changed their minds
after a close look at the evidence. And many opponents came to view fluoridation
not as a communist plot, but simply as a capitalist-style con job of epic
proportions. Some could be termed early environmentalists, such as the
physicians George L. Waldbott and Frederick B. Exner, who first documented
government-industry complicity in hiding the hazards of fluoride pollution
from the public. Waldbott and Exner risked their careers in a clash with
fluoride defenders, only to see their cause buried in toothpaste ads."11
-
- By 1950, fluoridation's image was a sterling
one, and there was not much science could do at this point. The Public
Health Service was fluoridation's main source of funding as well as its
promoter, and therefore caught in a fundamental conflict of interest.<#10.
Paul Farhi, Washington Post, 11/23/91.12 If fluoridation were found to
be unsafe and ineffective, and laws were repealed, the organization feared
a loss of face, since scientists, politicians, dental groups, and physicians
unanimously supported it.13
-
- For this reason, studies concerning its
effects were not undertaken. The Oakland Tribune noted this when it stated
that "public health officials have often suppressed scientific doubts"
about fluoridations.14 Waldbott sums up the situation when he says that
from the beginning, the controversy over fluoridating water supplies was
"a political, not a scientific health issue."15 The marketing
of fluoride continues. In a 1983 letter from the Environmental Protection
Agency, then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hammer,
writes that the EPA "regards [fluoridation] as an ideal environmental
solution to a longstanding problem. By recovering byproduct fluosilicic
acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized
and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them."16
More recently, a 1992 policy statement from the Department of Health and
Human Services says, "A recent comprehensive PHS review of the benefits
and potential health risks of fluoride has concluded that the practice
of fluoridating community water supplies is safe and effective."17
-
- Today, nearly 250 million people worldwide
drink fluoridated water, including about 130 million Americans in 9600
communities. Out of the 50 largest cities in the US, 41 have fluoridated
water.18
-
- To help celebrate fluoride's widespread
use, the media recently reported on the 50th anniversary of fluoridation
in Grand Rapids. Newspaper articles titled "Fluoridation: a shining
public health success"19 and "After 50 years, fluoride still
works with a smile"20 painted glowing pictures of the practice. Had
investigators looked more closely, though, they might have learned that
children in Muskegon, Michigan, an unfluoridated "control" city,
had equal drops in dental decay. They might also have learned of the other
studies that dispute the supposed wonders of fluoride.
-
- The Fluoride Myth Doesn't
Hold Water
-
- The big hope for fluoride was its ability
to immunize children's developing teeth against cavities. Rates of dental
caries were supposed to plummet in areas where water was treated. Yet decades
of experience and worldwide research have contradicted this expectation
numerous times. Here are just a few examples: * In British Columbia, only
11% of the population drinks fluoridated water, as opposed to 40-70% in
other Canadian regions. Yet British Columbia has the lowest rate of tooth
decay in Canada. In addition, the lowest rates of dental caries within
the province are found in areas that do not have their water supplies fluoridated.21
* According to a Sierra Club study, people in unfluoridated developing
nations have fewer dental caries than those living in industrialized nations.
As a result, they conclude that "fluoride is not essential to dental
health." <#20. The Chicago Tribune, 1/26/95.22 * In 1986-87, the
largest study on fluoridation and tooth decay ever was performed. The subjects
were 39,000 school children between 5 and 17 living in 84 areas around
the country. A third of the places were fluoridated, a third were
partially fluoridated, and a third were not. Results indicate no statistically
significant differences in dental decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated
cities.23 * A World Health Organization survey reports a decline of dental
decay in Western Europe, which is 98% unfluoridated. They state that western
Europe's declining dental decay rates are equal to and sometimes better
than those in the U.S.24 * A 1992 University of Arizona study
yielded surprising results when they found that "the more fluoride
a child drinks, the more cavities appear in the teeth."<#20.
The Chicago Tribune, 1/26/95.25
-
- * Although all Native American reservations
are fluoridated, children living there have much higher incidences of
dental decay and other oral health problems than do children living
in other U.S. communities.26 In light of all the evidence, fluoride proponents
now make more modest claims. For example, in 1988, the ADA professed that
a 40- to 60% cavity reduction could be achieved with the help of fluoride.
Now they claim an 18 to 25% reduction. Other promoters mention a 12% decline
in tooth decay.
-
- And some former supporters are even beginning
to question the need for fluoridation altogether. In 1990, a National Institute
for Dental Research report stated that "it is likely that if caries
in children remain at low levels or decline further, the necessity of continuing
the current variety and extent of fluoride-based prevention programs will
be questioned."27
-
- Most government agencies, however, continue
to ignore the scientific evidence and to market fluoridation by making
fictional claims about its benefits and pushing for its expansion. For
instance, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
"National surveys of oral health dating back several decades document
continuing decreases in tooth decay in children, adults and senior citizens.
Nevertheless, there are parts of the country and particular populations
that remain without protection. For these reasons, the U.S. PHS...has set
a national goal for the year 2000 that 75% of persons served by community
water systems will have access to optimally fluoridated drinking water;
currently this figure is just about 60%. The year 2000 target goal is both
desirable and yet challenging, based on past progress and continuing evidence
of effectiveness and safety of this public health measure."27
-
- This statement is flawed on several accounts.
First, as we've seen, research does not support the effectiveness of fluoridation
for preventing tooth disease. Second, purported benefits are supposedly
for children, not adults and senior citizens. At about age 13, any advantage
fluoridation might offer comes to an end, and less than 1% of the fluoridated
water supply reaches this population.28 And third, fluoridation has never
been proven safe. On the contrary, several studies directly link fluoridation
to skeletal fluorosis, dental fluorosis, and several rare forms of cancer.
This alone should frighten us away from its use.
-
- Biological Safety Concerns
-
- Only a small margin separates supposedly
beneficial fluoride levels from amounts that are known to cause adverse
effects. Dr. James Patrick, a former antibiotics research scientist at
the National Institutes of Health, describes the predicament:
-
- "[There is] a very low margin of
safety involved in fluoridating water. A concentration of about 1 ppm is
recommended...in several countries, severe fluorosis has been documented
from water supplies containing only 2 or 3 ppm. In the development of drugs...we
generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) of the order
of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that
is what has been proposed for public water supplies..."29
-
- Other countries argue that even 1 ppm
is not a safe concentration. Canadian studies, for example, imply that
children under three should have no fluoride whatsoever. The Journal of
the Canadian Dental Association states that "Fluoride supplements
should not be recommended for children less than 3 years old."30 Since
these supplements contain the same amount of fluoride as water does, they
are basically saying that children under the age of three shouldn't be
drinking fluoridated water at all, under any circumstances. Japan has reduced
the amount of fluoride in their drinking water to one-eighth of what is
recommended in the U.S. Instead of 1 milligram per liter, they use less
than 15 hundredths of a milligram per liter as the upper limit allowed.31
-
- Even supposing that low concentrations
are safe, there is no way to control how much fluoride different people
consume, as some take in a lot more than others. For example, laborers,
athletes, diabetics, and those living in hot or dry regions can all be
expected to drink more water, and therefore more fluoride (in fluoridated
areas) than others.32 Due to such wide variations in water consumption,
it is impossible to scientifically control what dosage of fluoride a person
receives via the water supply.33
-
- Another concern is that fluoride is not
found only in drinking water; it is everywhere. Fluoride is found in foods
that are processed with it, which, in the United States, include nearly
all bottled drinks and canned foods.34 Researchers writing in The Journal
of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry have found that fruit juices, in particular,
contain significant amounts of fluoride. In a recent study, a variety of
popular juices and juice blends were analyzed and it was discovered that
42% of the samples examined had more than l ppm of fluoride, with some
brands of grape juice containing much higher levels - up to 6.8 ppm! The
authors cite the common practice of using fluoride-containing insecticide
in growing grapes as a factor in these high levels, and they suggest that
the fluoride content of beverages be printed on their labels, as other
nutritional information.35 Considering how much juice some children ingest,
and the fact that youngsters often insist on particular brands that they
consume day after day, labeling seems like a prudent idea. But beyond this
is the larger issue that this study brings up: Is it wise to subject children
and others who are heavy juice drinkers to additional fluoride in their
water?
-
- Here's a little-publicized reality: Cooking
can greatly increase a food's fluoride content. Peas, for example, contain
12 micrograms of fluoride when raw and 1500 micrograms after they are cooked
in fluoridated water, which is a tremendous difference. Also, we should
keep in mind that fluoride is an ingredient in pharmaceuticals, aerosols,
insecticides, and pesticides.
-
- And of course, toothpastes. It's interesting
to note that in the 1950s, fluoridated toothpastes were required to carry
warnings on their labels saying that they were not to be used in areas
where water was already fluoridated. Crest toothpaste went so far as to
write: "Caution: Children under 6 should not use Crest." These
regulations were dropped in 1958, although no new research was available
to prove that the overdose hazard no longer existed.36
-
- Today, common fluoride levels in toothpaste
are 1000 ppm. Research chemist Woodfun Ligon notes that swallowing a small
amount adds substantially to fluoride intake.36 Dentists say that children
commonly ingest up to 0.5 mg of fluoride a day from toothpaste.36
-
- This inevitably raises another issue:
How safe is all this fluoride? According to scientists and informed doctors,
such as Dr. John Lee, it is not safe at all. Dr. Lee first took an anti-fluoridation
stance back in 1972, when as chairman of an environmental health committee
for a local medical society, he was asked to state their position on the
subject. He stated that after investigating the references given by both
pro- and anti-fluoridationists, the group discovered three important things:
-
- "One, the claims of benefit of fluoride,
the 60% reduction of cavities, was not established by any of these studies.
Two, we found that the investigations into the toxic side effects of fluoride
have not been done in any way that was acceptable. And three, we discovered
that the estimate of the amount of fluoride in the food chain, in the total
daily fluoride intake, had been measured in 1943, and not since then. By
adding the amount of fluoride that we now have in the food chain, which
comes from food processing with fluoridated water, plus all the fluoridated
toothpaste that was not present in 1943, we found that the daily intake
of fluoride was far in excess of what was considered optimal...."31
-
- What happens when fluoride intake exceeds
the optimal? The inescapable fact is that this substance has been associated
with severe health problems, ranging from skeletal and dental fluorosis
to bone fractures, to fluoride poisoning, and even to cancer.
-
- Skeletal Fluorosis
-
- When fluoride is ingested, approximately
93% of it is absorbed into the bloodstream. A good part of the material
is excreted, but the rest is deposited in the bones and teeth,37 and is
capable of causing a crippling skeletal fluorosis. This is a condition
that can damage the musculoskeletal and nervous systems and result in muscle
wasting, limited joint motion, spine deformities, and calcification of
the ligaments, as well as neurological deficits.38
-
- Large numbers of people in Japan, China,
India, the Middle East, and Africa have been diagnosed with skeletal fluorosis
from drinking naturally fluoridated water. In India alone, nearly a million
people suffer from the afffliction.39 While only a dozen cases of skeletal
fluorosis have been reported in the United States, Chemical and Engineering
News states that Critics of the EPA standard speculate that there probably
have been many more cases of fluorosis - even crippling fluorosis - than
the few reported in the literature because most doctors in the U.S. have
not studied the disease and do not know how to diagnose it."40
-
- Radiologic changes in bone occur when
fluoride exposure is 5 mg/day, according to the late Dr. George Waldbott,
author of Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. While this 5 mg/day level is
the amount of fluoride ingested by most people living in fluoridated areas,41
the number increases for diabetics and laborers, who can ingest up to 20
mg of fluoride daily. In addition, a survey conducted by the Department
of Agriculture shows that 3% of the U.S. population drinks 4 liters or
more of water every day. If these individuals live in areas where the water
contains a fluoride level of 4 ppm, allowed by the EPA, they are ingesting
16 mg/day from the consumption of water alone, and are thus at greater
risk for getting skeletal fluorosis.42
-
- Dental Fluorosis
-
- According to a 1989 National Institute
for Dental Research study, 12% of children living in areas fluoridated
at 1 ppm develop dental fluorosis, that is, permanently stained, brown
mottled teeth. Up to 23% of children living in areas naturally fluoridated
at 4 ppm develop severe dental fluorosis.43 Other research gives higher
figures. The publication Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, put out by
the National Academy of Sciences, reports that in areas with optimally
fluoridated water (1 ppm, either natural or added), dental fluorosis levels
in recent years ranged from 8 to 51%. Recently, a prevalence of slightly
over 80% was reported in children 12-14 years old in Augusta, Georgia.43
-
- Fluoride is a noteworthy chemical additive
in that its officially acknowledged benefit and damage levels are about
the same. Writing in The Progressive, science journalist Daniel Grossman
elucidates this point: "Though many beneficial chemicals are dangerous
when consumed at excessive levels, fluoride is unique because the amount
that dentists recommend to prevent cavities is about the same as the amount
that causes dental fluorosis."44 Although the American Dental Association
and the government consider dental fluorosis only a cosmetic problem, the
American Journal of Public Health says that "...brittleness of moderately
and severely mottled teeth may be associated with elevated caries levels."45
In other words, in these cases the fluoride is causing the exact problem
that it's supposed to prevent. Yiamouyiannis adds, "In highly naturally-fluoridated
areas, the teeth actually crumble as a result. These are the first visible
symptoms of fluoride poisoning "46
-
- Also, when considering dental fluorosis,
there are factors beyond the physical that you can't ignore - the negative
psychological effects of having moderately to severely mottled teeth. These
were recognized in a 1984 National Institute of Mental Health panel that
looked into this problem.44
-
- A telling trend is that TV commercials
for toothpaste, and toothpaste tubes themselves, are now downplaying fluoride
content as a virtue. This was noted in an article in the Sarasota/Florida
ECO Report,47 whose author, George Glasser, feels that manufacturers are
distancing themselves from the additive because of fears of lawsuits. The
climate is ripe for these, and Glasser points out that such a class action
suit has already been filed in England against the manufacturers of fluoride-containing
products on behalf of children suffering from dental fluorosis.
-
- Bone Fractures
-
- At one time, fluoride therapy was recommended
for building denser bones and preventing fractures associated with osteoporosis.
Now several articles in peer-reviewed journals suggest that fluoride actually
causes more harm than good, as it is associated with bone breakage. Three
studies reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association showed
links between hip fractures and fluoride.48-50 Findings here were, for
instance, that there is "a small but significant increase in the risk
of hip fractures in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation
at 1 ppm."51 In addition, the New England Journal of Medicine reports
that people given fluoride to cure their osteoporosis actually wound up
with an increased nonvertebral fracture rate.52 Austrian researchers have
also found that fluoride tablets make bones more susceptible to fractures.53
The U.S. National Research Council states that the U.S. hip fracture rate
is now the highest in the world.54
-
- Louis V. Avioli, professor at the Washington
University School of Medicine, says in a 1987 review of the subject: "Sodium
fluoride therapy is accompanied by so many medical complications and side
effects that it is hardly worth exploring in depth as a therapeutic mode
for postmenopausal osteoporosis, since it fails to decrease the propensity
for hip fractures and increases the incidence of stress fractures in the
extremities."54
-
- Fluoride Poisoning
-
- In May 1992, 260 people were poisoned,
and one man died, in Hooper Bay, Alaska, after drinking water contaminated
with 150 ppm of fluoride. The accident was attributed to poor equipment
and an unqualified operator.55 Was this a fluke? Not at all. Over the years,
the CDC has recorded several incidents of excessive fluoride permeating
the water supply and sickening or killing people. We don't usually hear
about these occurrences in news reports, but interested citizens have learned
the truth from data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Here
is a partial list of toxic spills we have not been told about:
-
- * July 1993 - Chicago, Illinois: Three
dialysis patients died and five experienced toxic reactions to the fluoridated
water used in the treatment process. The CDC was asked to investigate,
but to date there have been no press releases. * May 1993 - Kodiak, Alaska
(Old Harbor): The population was warned not to consume water due to high
fluoride levels. They were also cautioned against boiling the water, since
this concentrates the substance and worsens the danger. Although equipment
appeared to be functioning normally, 22-24 ppm of fluoride was found in
a sample. * July 1992 - Marin County, California: A pump malfunction
allowed too much fluoride into the Bon Tempe treatment plant. Two million
gallons of fluoridated water were diverted to Phoenix Lake, elevating the
lake surface by more than two inches and forcing some water over the spillway.
* December 1991 - Benton Harbor Michigan: A faulty pump allowed approximately
900 gallons of hydrofluosilicic acid to leak into a chemical storage building
at the water plant. City engineer Roland Klockow stated, "The concentrated
hydrofluosilicic acid was so corrosive that it ate through more than two
inches of concrete in the storage building." This water did not reach
water consumers, but fluoridation was stopped until June 1993. The original
equipment was only two years old. * July 1991 - Porgate, Michigan:
After a fluoride injector pump failed, fluoride levels reached 92 ppm and
resulted in approximately 40 children developing abdominal pains, sickness,
vomiting, and diarrhea at a school arts and crafts show. * November
1979 - Annapolis, Maryland: One patient died and eight became ill after
renal dialysis treatment. Symptoms included cardiac arrest (resuscitated),
hypotension, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and a whole gamut of
intestinal problems. Patients not on dialysis also reported nausea,
headaches, cramps, diarrhea, and dizziness. The fluoride level was later
found to be 35 ppm; the problem was traced to a valve at a water
plant that had been left open all night.55 Instead of addressing fluoridation's
problematic safety record, officials have chosen to cover it up. For example,
the ADA says in one booklet distributed to health agencies that "Fluoride
feeders are designed to stop operating when a malfunction occurs... so
prolonged overfluoridation becomes a mechanical impossibility."56
In addition, the information that does reach the population after an accident
is woefully inaccurate. A spill in Annapolis, Maryland, placed thousands
at risk, but official reports reduced the number to eight.57 Perhaps officials
are afraid they will invite more lawsuits like the one for $480 million
by the wife of a dialysis patient who became brain-injured as the result
of fluoride poisoning.
-
- Not all fluoride poisoning is accidental.
For decades, industry has knowingly released massive quantities of fluoride
into the air and water. Disenfranchised communities, with people least
able to fight back, are often the victims. Medical writer Joel Griffiths
relays this description of what industrial pollution can do, in this case
to a devastatingly poisoned Indian reservation:
-
- "Cows crawled around the pasture
on their bellies, inching along like giant snails. So crippled by bone
disease they could not stand up, this was the only way they could graze.
Some died kneeling, after giving birth to stunted calves. Others kept on
crawling until, no longer able to chew because their teeth had crumbled
down to the nerves, they began to starve...." They were the cattle
of the Mohawk Indians on the New York-Canadian St. Regis Reservation during
the period 1960-1975, when industrial pollution devastated the herd - and
along with it, the Mohawks' way of life....Mohawk children, too, have shown
signs of damage to bones and teeth."58
-
- Mohawks filed suit against the Reynolds
Metals Company and the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) in 1960, but
ended up settling out of court, where they received $650,000 for their
cows.59
-
- Fluoride is one of industry's major pollutants,
and no one remains immune to its effects. In 1989,155,000 tons were being
released annually into the air;60 and 500,000 tons a year were disposed
of in our lakes, rivers, and oceans.61
-
- Cancer
-
- Numerous studies demonstrate links between
fluoridation and cancer; however, agencies promoting fluoride consistently
refute or cover up these findings.
-
- In 1977, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and Dr.
Dean Burk, former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, released
a study that linked fluoridation to 10,000 cancer deaths per year in the
U.S. Their inquiry, which compared cancer deaths in the ten largest fluoridated
American cities to those in the ten largest unfluoridated cities between
1940 and 1950, discovered a 5% greater rate in the fluoridated areas.62
The NCI disputed these findings, since an earlier analysis of theirs apparently
failed to pick up these extra deaths. Federal authorities claimed that
Yiamouyiannis and Burk were in error, and that any increase was caused
by statistical changes over the years in age, gender, and racial composition.63
-
- In order to settle the question of whether
or not fluoride is a carcinogen, a Congressional subcommittee instructed
the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to perform another investigation.64
That study, due in 1980, was not released until 1990. However, in 1986,
while the study was delayed, the EPA raised the standard fluoride level
in drinking water from 2.4 to 4 ppm.65 After this step, some of the government's
own employees in NFFE Local 2050 took what the Oakland Tribune termed the
"remarkable step of denouncing that action as political."66
-
- When the NTP study results became known
in early 1990, union president Dr. Robert Carton, who works in the EPA's
Toxic Substances Division, published a statement. It read, in part: "Four
years ago, NFFE Local 2050, which represents all 1100 professionals at
EPA headquarters, alerted then Administrator Lee Thomas to the fact that
the scientific support documents for the fluoride in drinking water standard
were fatally flawed.... The fluoride juggernaut proceeded as it apparently
had for the last 40 years - without any regard for the facts or concern
for public health.
-
- "EPA raised the allowed level of
fluoride before the results of the rat/mouse study ordered by Congress
in 1977 was complete. Today, we find out how irresponsible that decision
was. The results reported by NTP, and explained today by Dr. Yiamouyiannis,
are, as he notes, not surprising considering the vast amount of data that
caused the animal study to be conducted in the first place. The results
are not surprising to NFFE Local 2050 either. Four years ago we realized
that the claim that there was no evidence that fluoride could cause genetic
effects or cancer could not be supported by the shoddy document thrown
together by the EPA contractor.
-
- "It was apparent to us that EPA
bowed to political pressure without having done an in-depth, independent
analysis, using in-house experts, of the currently existing data that show
fluoride causes genetic effects, promotes the growth of cancerous tissue,
and is likely to cause cancer in humans. If EPA had done so, it would have
been readily apparent -as it was to Congress in 1977- that there were serious
reasons to believe in a cancer threat.
-
- "The behavior by EPA in this affair
raises questions about the integrity of science at EPA and the role of
professional scientists, lawyers and engineers who provide the interpretation
of the available data and the judgements necessary to protect the public
health and the environment. Are scientists at EPA there to arrange facts
to fit preconceived conclusions? Does the Agency have a responsibility
to develop world-class experts in the risks posed by chemicals we are exposed
to every day, or is it permissible for EPA to cynically shop around for
contractors who will provide them the 'correct' answers?"67
-
- What were the NTP study results? Out
of 130 male rats that ingested 45 to 79 ppm of fluoride, 5 developed osteosarcoma,
a rare bone cancer. There were cases, in both males and females at those
doses, of squamous cell carcinoma in the mouth.68 Both rats and mice had
dose-related fluorosis of the teeth, and female rats suffered osteosclerosis
of the long bones.69
-
- When Yiamouyiannis analyzed the same
data, he found mice with a particularly rare form of liver cancer, known
as hepatocholangiocarcinoma. This cancer is so rare, according to Yiamouyiannis,
that the odds of its appearance in this study by chance are 1 in 2 million
in male mice and l in 100,000 in female mice.39 He also found precancerous
changes in oral squamous cells, an increase in squamous cell tumors and
cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors as a result of increasing levels
of fluoride in drinking water.70
-
- A March 13, 1990, New York Times article
commented on the NTP findings: "Previous animal tests suggesting that
water fluoridation might pose risks to humans have been widely discounted
as technically flawed, but the latest investigation carefully weeded out
sources of experimental or statistical error, many scientists say, and
cannot be discounted."<#70. Center for Health Action.71 In the
same article, biologist Dr. Edward Groth notes: "The importance of
this study...is that it is the first fluoride bioassay giving positive
results in which the latest state-of-the-art procedures have been rigorously
applied. It has to be taken seriously."71
-
- On February 22, 1990, the Medical Tribune,
an international medical news weekly received by 125,000 doctors, offered
the opinion of a federal scientist who preferred to remain anonymous:
-
- "It is difficult to see how EPA
can fail to regulate fluoride as a carcinogen in light of what NTP has
found. Osteosarcomas are an extremely unusual result in rat carcinogenicity
tests. Toxicologists tell me that the only other substance that has produced
this is radium....The fact that this is a highly atypical form of cancer
implicates fluoride as the cause. Also, the osteosarcomas appeared to be
dose-related, and did not occur in controls, making it a clean study."72
-
- Public health officials were quick to
assure a concerned public that there was nothing to worry about! The ADA
said the occurrence of cancers in the lab may not be relevant to humans
since the level of fluoridation in the experimental animals' water was
so high.<#70. Center for Health Action.73 But the Federal Register,
which is the handbook of government practices, disagrees: "The high
exposure of experimental animals to toxic agents is a necessary and valid
method of discovering possible carcinogenic hazards in man. To disavow
the findings of this test would be to disavow those of all such tests,
since they are all conducted according to this standard."73 As a February
5, 1990 Newsweek article pointed out, "such megadosing is standard
toxicological practice. It's the only way to detect an effect without using
an impossibly large number of test animals to stand in for the humans exposed
to the substance."<#70. Center for Health Action.74 And as the
Safer Water Foundation explains, higher doses are generally administered
to test animals to compensate for the animals' shorter life span and because
humans are generally more vulnerable than test animals on a body-weight
basis.75
-
- Several other studies link fluoride to
genetic damage and cancer. An article in Mutation Research says that a
study by Proctor and Gamble, the very company that makes Crest toothpaste,
did research showing that 1 ppm fluoride causes genetic damage.<#70.
Center for Health Action.76 Results were never published but Proctor and
Gamble called them "clean," meaning animals were supposedly free
of malignant tumors. Not so, according to scientists who believe some of
the changes observed in test animals could be interpreted as precancerous.<#70.
Center for Health Action.77 Yiamouyiannis says the Public Health Service
sat on the data, which were finally released via a Freedom of Information
Act request in 1989. "Since they are biased, they have tried to cover
up harmful effects," he says. "But the data speaks for itself.
Half the amount of fluoride that is found in the New York City drinking
water causes genetic damage."46
-
- A National Institutes of Environmental
Health Sciences publication, Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, also
linked fluoride to genetic toxicity when it stated that "in cultured
human and rodent cells, the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion
that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberrations."78
The result of this is not only birth defects but the mutation of normal
cells into cancer cells. The Journal of Carcinogenesis further states that
"fluoride not only has the ability to transform normal cells into
cancer cells but also to enhance the cancer-causing properties of other
chemicals."<#70. Center for Health Action.79
-
- Surprisingly, the PHS put out a report
called Review of fluoride: benefits and risks, in which they showed a substantially
higher incidence of bone cancer in young men exposed to fluoridated water
compared to those who were not. The New Jersey Department of Health also
found that the risk of bone cancer was about three times as high in fluoridated
areas as in nonfluoridated areas.46
-
- Despite cover-up attempts, the light
of knowledge is filtering through to some enlightened scientists. Regarding
animal test results, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, James Huff, does say that "the reason these animals
got a few osteosarcomas was because they were given fluoride...Bone is
the target organ for fluoride."80 Toxicologist William Marcus adds
that "fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA
should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data,
but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity, and other
effects."81
-
- 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?"82
-
- 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 explains83
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."83
-
- 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 even a 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."63
-
- 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...."83
-
- 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"83
-
- 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."46
-
- 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."31
-
- 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?"46
-
- 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."46
-
- 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."83
-
- 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.46 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.46
-
- 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 Institute64 and West Germany, now 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."84
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."31
-
- Isn't it time the United States followed
western Europe's 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, pointing out that public pressure has gotten
fluoride out of the water in places like Los Angeles; Newark and Jersey
City in New Jersey; and Bedford, Massachusetts.46 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."46
-
- There is also a moral issue in the debate
that has largely escaped notice. According to columnist James Kilpatrick,
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.<#10. Paul Farhi, Washington
Post, 11/23/91.13 A recent 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."85
-
- Correspondence:
-
- Gary Null, PhD
- P. O. Box 918
- Planetarium Station
- New York, New York 10024 USA
- 212-799-1246
-
-
- References
-
-
- 1. Dr. John Yiamonyiannis, in interview
with Gary Null 3/10/95. His
- statement is referenced in the Clinical
Toxicology of Commercial Products,
- Fifth Ed., Williams and Wilkins.
- 2. Joel Griffiths, Fluoride: Commie
Plot or Capitalist Ploy,' Covert
- Action, Fall 1992, Vol. 42, p. 30.
- 3. Ibid. p. 27.
- 4. Ibid. p. 28.
- 5. Ibid.
- 6. McNeil, The Fight for Fluoridation,
1957,p.37.
- 7. Griffiths, op. cit., p. 28.
- 8. Griffiths, op. cit.
- 9. G.L. Waldbott et al., Fluoridation.
The Great Dilemma, Lawrence, XS,
- Coronado Press 1978, p. 295
- 10. Paul Farhi, Washington Post, 11/23/91.
- 11. Griffiths, op. cit., p. 63.
- 12. Longevity Magazine, pp. 7-89.
- 13. The Morning Call, 2/7/90
- 14. Science, 1/90.
- 15. Waldbott, op. cit., p. 255.
- 16. Letter, Rebecca Hammer,3/83.
- 17. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
"Policy statement on community
- water fluoridation, July 22 1992, Washington,
D.C.
- 18. Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88,
p. 29; Amer. J. Pub. Health,
|