Operator Safety- The Joe Walls Story
Fluoride Political Agenda 2006
not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither
is it merely the opportunity to choose between set
alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance
to formulate the available choices, to argue over
them -- and then, the opportunity to choose"
C. Wright Mills
Moratorium Friday, August 5th 2005, the majority
of the EPA’s Unions (Unions which represent
the scientists, researchers, toxicologists, legal
counsel and others as defined by law as professionals)
requested that the EPA direct the Office of Water
to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
setting the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride
at zero, in accordance with Agency policy for all
likely or known human carcinogens.
Citizens for Health Action with help from Citizens
for Safe Drinking Water placed an action alert on
their website that, when clicked, brings you to a
pre-written letter to Congress to support the EPA's
call for a fluoridation moratorium: All you do is
fill in your name and address and off it goes to your
& Engineering News August 2004 "...the
deeper lessons of this story, going back to classified
military research during World War II, are the book's
Fluoride Deception] insights into the threats
to open inquiry in public health and environmental
science. Premature closure of debate in science undercuts
one of its unique features--a feature that distinguishes
it from other forms of fixing belief--namely, science's
self-correcting function. Without a scientific culture
that supports reexamination of "no risk"
results, however strongly held, we may find our public
health and environmental policies resting on weak
or faulty foundations, which can prolong our blindness
to preventable illnesses."
Fluoridation, Risk Assessment, Impact on Operation
and Budget is available on powerpoint. Please
email a request.
are the politics of fluoridating water in Utah?
"It was an era
of thalidomide and plutonium;
school segregation and human experimentation; 24-hour
SAC bomber patrols and classroom "duck and cover"
drills; atmospheric H-bomb testing and DDT.
The Red Scare dominated the news and physicians endorsed
cigarette on TV. The "Atomic Genie"
was out of the bottle and radium treatment was in
vogue. And, of course, there was the latest of modern
wonders, water fluoridation. Scientists of post WW
II America promised the world. And, as with 3-D movies
and the Edsel, the promise was far beyond what would
be delivered. Fluoridated water was idealized as the
ultimate form of 1950's failsafe social engineering.
What could be more appealing than to be able to have
your children virtually drink away dental decay."
("Copyright 2004 Andrew
W. Saul and the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
Reprinted with permission)
Aluminum chief investigator, Frank Seamans stated,
“there is little solid information on the subject
about what harm fluorides could do, what harm they
did not do and what the tolerance levels were for
people.” Accordingly, “research was encouraged
and supported at the University of Wisconsin, Utah
State, Stanford Research Institute..”F.L.Seamans,
“Historical, Economic and Legal Aspects of Fluoride,”
in Shupes et al., eds., Fluorides, p.5
the question raises concerns.
respected child-focused organizations, like UNICEF,
have an official position.
For an overview of the litigation
through 1997, please review Highlights
of North American Litigation during the Twentieth
Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water
As it is such a controversial
issue, even the history
fluoride is recounted differently.
s generally agreed that from the
mid 1800's, industrial fluoride contamination, generated
more lawsuits than all other contaminants, combined
Critics of fluoridation charge that
fluoride is deliberately associated with good health
to protect many major industries, especially uranium,
aluminum, and steel smelting, from the massive lawsuits
that began to be filed in the 1930s for fluoride related
damage to livestock, farms, and community health.
There are those who claim
that facts have been misrepresented and known risks,
ignored and scientific
dissent has been suppressed,
EPA Union, representing the scientists, researchers
and other professionals, opposes the practice
stating" Our members review of evidence over
the past eleven years, including animal and human
epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between
fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage,
neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular
concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride
exposures to lower I.Q. in children. As professionals
who are charged with assessing the safety of drinking
water, we conclude that the health and welfare of
the public are not served by the addition of this
substance to the public water supply."
Some suggest public water
fluoridation is a form of mass
The Salt Lake County
Health Department prepared the following website.
The Very Best of 101 Fluoride Questions The
following question is taken from the website
Is water fluoridation
a form of mass medication?
is the 13th most abundant element in the earth's crust
and also in the human body. It is present in small
and varying amounts in all soils, plants, animals,
air and water supplies. Fluoride occurs naturally
in varying amounts in surface water (oceans and lakes)
and in groundwater. Because of this, our diet contains
fluoride and it is then deposited in our teeth and
Fluoride is considered a beneficial nutrient based
on its proven effects on dental health.
2004 Utah Department of Health Statement on Community
Water Fluoridation states the nationwide goal
to prevent cavities through community water fluoridation
is similar to previous public health efforts to prevent
common health problems..an additive is provided to
everyone..since it is impossible to individually identify
and effectively treat the significant number of people
who are at risk. As a result of these programs, thousands
of cases of illness, disability and death are prevented
each year with no harm to the rest of the population.
FDA, the organization that regulates medicines
and additives, has never approved industrial-grade
fluoridation chemicals for human consumption. Fluoride
has not been listed as an
Some say fluoridation raises
ethical questions, that unlicensed medicinal
substances, administered to large populations without
informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical
practitioner is a violation of medical ethics and
Some say it is
good public policy. The
Council of Science and Health states "Fluoridation
remains the safest, most effective, and most economic
public-health measure to prevent tooth decay and to
improve oral health for a lifetime," says ACSH
President Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. The ADA
promotes it yet some take issue
with the ADA's facts. The CDC
encourages it yet the
effectiveness of the practice has been questioned.
"Fluoridation honors" were bestowed upon
many communities(1), which happen to have the highest
cavity and tooth loss rates, by the American Dental
Association (ADA), the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) and the American Association of State and Territorial
Dental Directors (AASTDD).
Prior to the 2000 vote, the Statewide
Coalition of Utahns for Better Dental Health called
in Dr. Michael W. Easley.
those who disagree with Dr. Easley's 'fluoridation
facts' therefore a debate on the benefits and risks
of fluoridation was scheduled. Proponents refused
to publicly discuss the issue saying, "A favorite
tactic of the fluorophobics is to argue for a debate
so that 'the people can decide who is right.' Proponents
of fluoride are often trapped into consenting to public
Who to believe?
a blessing or a curse?
Professionals are advised of fluorides legal risks
and some are
strong supporters, while some are not
supportive of the practice. Some dental professionals,
who previously supported it, now
strongly oppose the practice.
Associations as well as
scientists are divided.
EPA admits to having no safety studies on siliciofluorides.
National Academy of Sciences has been asked to
research the issue. Congressional
investigations have been initiated. A recent
Court Lawsuit ruled against a Health Department
communities have rejected the practice.
there seems to be
dental crisis in areas long fluoridated.
Some suggest public water
fluoridation presents serious biological concerns
fluoride will cause adverse reactions? That is
at the heart of the question. How much is too much?
At the insistence of the director
of the Forsyth
Research Institute and Dr.
Harold Hodge, Dr.
Phyllis Mullenix researched the toxicology of
fluoride on the brain, having been told by Dr. Hodge
the antimetabolic properties of fluoride included
the facts that fluoride inhibits cell proliferation
and delayed cell differentiation and increases concentrations
of cAMP via interactions with G proteins involved
with cellular growth, differentiation, cytoskeletal
organization and intracellular vesicle transport.
Mullenix's research indicated a) Central Nervous
System function is vulnerable to acute and chronic
exposure to fluoride b) effects on behavior depend
on age at exposure and c) fluoride accumulates in
In short, fluoride
is a neurotoxin and the amount of fluoride ingested
is not so important as the level of fluoride in the
blood serum. In the blood plasma, fluoride is more
toxic than lead. Many professionals agree fluoride
is a bio
Some feel fluorides
are general protoplasmic poisons.
The US Department of Health and
Human Services states “Existing
data indicate that [some people] may be unusually
susceptible to the toxic effects of fluorine and its
compounds.” Some people suggest the practice
of fluoridating public water supplies could place
the elderly at increased risk of hip fractures. Some
believe fluoride is contraindicated for individuals
with thyroid problems. Some say those with kidney
(renal) dysfunction should avoid fluorides.
Journal of Epidemiology and others
suggest that fluoride increases the risk of
hip fractures among women.
A substantial body of evidence (both
animal and human) currently exists suggesting that
fluoride may cause osteosarcoma,
a rare and deadly cancer of the bone.
Professionals say children
under the age of 6 months are to have no fluoridated
water, either to drink or mixed in their formulas.
As a mother breastfeeds her baby, fluoride passes
the breast at .01 parts per million, or 1/100th milligram
per litre. If a mother makes a formula using fluoridated
tapwater, she gives her baby 1 part per million, or
1 milligram per litre of fluorides, 100 times more
fluoride than what nature would allow.
Most concede poor dental health
is linked to income levels, that children who don’t
receive regular dental care, who have poor dental
hygiene or who suffer from poor nutrition have a greater
incidence of dental decay.
Who to believe? The Health Department
asserts fluoride is a beneficial additive with the
risk, dental fluorosis or mild tooth mottling.
Some say fluoride works best on
the smooth surfaces of teeth but that is not where
most cavities occur. Some say drinking fluoridated
water is beneficial yet the benefits
are from topical application. Dental sealants
for all third graders is part of the Annual
Goals for the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Population
- Year 2005. If the teeth are sealed, why do we need
to fluoridate water supplies?
Both the Salt Lake and Davis Health
Department contend time is needed to see the results.
According to the SLVHD, there are no baseline studies
against which to measure the practice. Additionally,
according the State of Utah Oral Health Department,
no oral health studies have been undertaken in Brigham
Some say there is little
difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated
and non fluoridated areas.
2004 Utah Department of Health Statement on Community
Water Fluoridation also states "Utah adults
have dental restorations and decay at a rate that
is above the national average. Only 51% of Utah citizens
are serviced by community water systems with optimal
levels of fluoride." According to the CDC report,
entitled Public Health and Aging: Retention of Natural
Teeth Among Older Adults, it is reported that Utah
ranks number one in the nation for elderly people
with the most number of teeth and that data taken
in 2000, when Utah had less than 2% of its water supplies
artificially fluoridated. As of 2002, only 8%
of Davis County people have lost six or more teeth
- the lowest in the nation.
Department concedes to having no data regarding
fluoridation chemicals long term health effects nor
is there any data that determines the short or long
term impact of fluoridation chemicals on our closed
water system, the Great Salt Lake or Farmington Bay.
Aren't all fluoridation
chemicals the same?
Both the Davis County Health Department
and the Salt Lake Valley Health Department have claimed
fluoride is fluoride. Prior to the vote, they presented
Facts as well as estimated costs. The Utah
State Health Department agreed. January 2004,
Utah Department of Health prepared a Statement on
Community Water Fluoridation
water fluoridation chemicals are not the same
chemicals that are found in toothpaste or prescribed
by the dentist.
(Center for Disease Control) consistently refers to
specific fluorine chemicals. The CDC's affiliate group,
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry) says something slightly different. The CDC
concedes fluoridation chemicals are by-products
of the phosphate fertilizer industry and most
of the available literature on fluoride toxicity concerns
sodium fluoride. Sodium fluoride(NaF) is not what
is used in public water supplies.
With the exception of Hill Air Force
Base and one small water system in Davis County, the
chemical currently used to
fluoridate public water supplies in both Davis
and Salt Lake Counties is fluorosilicic acid,
Some suggest that in Utah's
unique closed water system, fluorosilicic acid may
have an environmental consequence.
Department concedes to having no data regarding
fluoridation chemicals short or long term impact on
our closed water system, the Great Salt Lake or Farmington
Some say the amounts we add, upwards
of 1ppm,which is 1 milligram per litre, could have
a negative effect on our unique water
Some say it could negatively impact
plants, the animals,
horses and cattle
as well as fish
How will it impact
the Great Salt Lake, Farmington Bay or the Jordon
How will it impact the brine
shrimp and the algae in the Great Salt Lake?
If this is such a controversial
issue, why is fluoridation pushed so heavily? Why
was fluoridation referred to as a 'stealth' plan,
as court documents reveal in Davis County?
Why were public debates, refused?
Both the Salt Lake Valley Health
Department as well as Davis County Health Department
want Davis County voters to continue their support
of public water fluoridation, as they contend
taxpayer dollars have already been spent on infrastructure.
than 1 percent of public water supplies is ingested,
some say we don’t need to pay to use fluoridated
water on our gardens and lawns, that the costs have
been incurred and the infrastructure will have to
be paid for whether or not fluoride is running in
Why the push to fluoridate?
Follow the money.
As it is
extremely controversial policy, internationally,
of the scientific
literature must be reviewed, especially studies
elucidating fluorides toxicity from 2000
and books abound with the recently reviewed
The Fluoride Deception receiving
A contentious subject with diametrically
opposed positioning, there are few simple answers.
Some say all the concerns are of no significance,
that benefits outweigh the risks.
Some say the risks far outweigh
any other consideration.
Before you revote the issue this
November, Waterwatch urges you to consider the issue
carefully. It is a far more complicated political
question than it appears.