Budget Proposal Could Save Nashville $412,000

NEWS RELEASE

For immediate release: 4 March 2009

For more information contact: Jack Cook, jcook56050@aol.com

Nashville Receives Budget Proposal
That Could Save More Than $412,000
By Ending Fluoridation
Fluoridation is Voluntary in Tennessee and Controversial

NASHVILLE - The repercussions of Nashville's looming budget shortfall are prompting city departments to consider cuts to a broad variety of programs. The City has solicited suggestions for savings from citizens.

One recently submitted proposal is from East Nashville resident Jack Cook, who has compiled and submitted to the Mayor's Office of Management and Finance and to all City Council members a plan to save more than $412,000 in the next fiscal year and beyond by ending water fluoridation. A resident of East Nashville, Cook, who is an activist against the practice of water fluoridation, has included recent documents by qualified scientists and researchers who have been actively warning municipalities across the United States and other fluoridated countries of the adverse health effects associated with the substance. Cook has been researching fluoride since 2007 when he discovered the true nature of the neurotoxin, and has interviewed many of the scientists and researchers whose papers are included in his proposal. He is a member of the Fluoride Action Network, a non-profit organization that is actively engaged in educating the public about this unnecessary and risky program.

Water fluoridation began in Nashville in May of 1953, and was heavily promoted by the U. S. Public Health Service even before several major public trials were completed.

After researching the issue in 2006, Dr. Joey Hensley, who is the only practicing physician and member of the State Legislature, issued a letter to every water utility in the State of Tennessee asking them to cease their fluoridation programs. Although more than 18 water utilities have complied, the fluoride and dental lobby, Centers for Disease Control, and American Dental Association continue to strongly support fluoridation despite mounting evidence of long term health problems associated with very small concentrations that are intentionally placed in public drinking water.

Fluoridation is voluntary in Tennessee and not mandated by law.

"In these times of economic stress, it is simply ludicrous to continue fluoridation when anyone can easily buy fluoride toothpaste at the super market," states Cook. " We are overloaded with fluoride because it is in our foods, our cold drinks, and anything processed with tap water. We give it to our pets, water our grass and gardens with it, and run it down the drain where it eventually ends up in our rivers and streams as a pollution hazard. It doesn't just go away. I now drink and cook with distilled water that my family makes at home because you can't simply filter out fluoride. I do not want this poison in my family's drinking water, but Metro refuses to remove it or even acknowledge the many scientific studies linking it to endocrine problems, bone fractures, fluorosis, thyroid problems, lowered IQ among children, osteoarthritis, and many other known adverse effects. Citizens of Nashville and other cities across the nation have no choice. The introduction of fluoride into our drinking water, a very potent neurotoxin once used in rat poison and pesticides, amounts to involuntary mass medication of our citizens with no prescription or monitoring by a qualified and licensed medical practitioner. It is clearly illegal under Tennessee state law. Although Nashville has placed approximately 1 part per million in our water for sixty years now, the danger lies in fluoride's accumulative effects. People in Davidson County rarely think about, much less understand the issue.
Even though our mayor and our council have been alerted to these problems, the Davidson County Health Department continues to endorse a practice that is essentially illegal in every state in our nation. And, they do so using old, tired and intentionally misleading information that is in most cases copied straight from the talking points used by the Centers for Disease Control Oral Health Division. Rather than spending money on proven programs for individuals who cannot afford professional dental care, it seems our health officials prefer to defend and protect the fluoridation program at all costs and by any means necessary. It makes no scientific sense and is criminal at best.

For more information about harm from ingested fluorides and fluoridation visit

http://www.FluorideAlert.org

The Fluoride Action Network is a non-profit, international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.

#####


The text of the Budget Proposal

Submitted to:

Metropolitan Nashville Office of the Mayor
Office of Management and Budget
Metro Courthouse
1 Public Square
Nashville, TN. 37201

From:

Jack Cook

jcook56050(at)aol(dot)com

A Proposal for Metro Water Services to Eliminate the Fluoridation Program
from Nashville and Davidson County Utilities
Minimum savings: $412,068


3 March 2009

The Problem

In the last two quarters of fiscal year 2008, a surge in energy prices, a failing home mortgage system, and a rapidly falling stock market created a cascade of decreasing commerce with resultant decreases in tax revenue streams to city governments across the country and the world. Municipalities have been particularly challenged by issues of decreasing revenue while being forced to exert pressure on government service departments to decrease budgetary requests for the following fiscal year to make up for inevitable shortfalls. This issue has forced service departments to make cuts to every area of operations up to and including personnel. Continuing budget cuts create the very real problem of choosing the best of several previously unacceptable options in order to provide a reasonable response to the needs of constituents who have come to expect a certain level of service from government. This also leaves open some options that may have remained unnoticed or for which the previously perceived need did not match the actual practical value of continuing the service. It is that conundrum of perceived need versus actual practical value that this proposal is aimed.

Proposed Budget Cut

The proposal is that of terminating the fluoridation program currently in operation at all water utilities under Metro Water Services. By the estimate of Metro Water Services, the savings generated by cessation of the fluoridation program would amount to a minimum of $412,068 from the next budget year. (see letter from Metro Water Services) Due to the emerging possibility of lawsuits against Metro Government or other government agencies from litigants claiming harm from fluoride exposure, the true cost savings may be much higher in future budgets.

Purpose

1) To save financial resources for the government of Metro - Davidson County so that those funds may be placed in more useful and efficient programs or save jobs which might otherwise be terminated.

2) To take advantage of a growing trend in the United States whereby municipalities are revisiting the program of water fluoridation with a renewed interest in emerging scientific data strongly suggesting that the practice of water fluoridation is inefficient, medically risky, and therefore unnecessary for the overall purpose for which it was originally intended at inception, that being the introduction of fluoride into the diets of children whose teeth were to benefit directly by the process of remineralization by the fluoride ion in order to harden teeth and prevent cavitation. If implemented, the elimination of the fluoride program will allow for the application of the Precautionary Principle, whereby a program that is in question will be ceased until unbiased scientific investigation determines it to be safe.

3) To initiate an action that may be compatible with Mayor Karl Dean's Executive Order no. 025, or the Healthy Nashville Initiative. Specifically, under section IV.2.a-b wherein it is the responsibility of the Healthy Nashville Leadership Council for "assessing health systems for essential services, and assessing potential forces of change" while "Establishing strategic priorities and mobilizing community initiatives to achieve improvements in health."

4) To bring this information to the attention of government officials of Metropolitan Nashville - Davidson County who might otherwise never be fully informed about the issue.

History

The operation of fluoridation programs in Nashville began in 1953 during a period when such programs were being heavily promoted by the Public Health Service of the United States. The USPHS began promoting fluoridation even though the original trial programs were never completed. In 1938, H. Trendley Dean and the USPHS conducted the "Galesburg-Quincy" study, one of the two studies upon which the practice of water fluoridation would rest (the other is the "21 cities" study, done in 1939 and 1940). On these two studies rested the "fluorine-dental caries hypothesis" which was tested in experiments at Grand Rapids, Michigan, Newburgh, New York, and Brantford, Ontario. Those trials were never actually completed before fluoridation began in other cities.

Note: These studies were later examined by non-government expert statisticians, and found to be statistically flawed, as well as having a significant number of other serious problems, making the studies worthless.

These programs, that are operated in most major municipalities across the country fluoridate the water of approximately two-thirds of the population of the United States. Most utilities began the program without unbiased and thorough scientific review and without fully informing the population in whose water the substance was to be placed.

The substances used most often in fluoridation are fluorides that are readily available from industrial sources. That used most often in the United States is fluorosilicic acid, which has not been approved as a drug by the FDA, although it is used by water utilities as a medication to change the human body in some way. All other chemicals used in water treatment are added to make water safe from bacteria and suspended solids. Use of a non-approved medication in the water of an entire population constitutes mass medication without measured dosage and without prescription by a qualified and licensed medical doctor. The practice is ultimately illegal under Tennessee law and a contradiction of the Nuremburg Code. All subsequent medical codes have their origins in the Nuremburg Code, and though their wording may vary, they all incorporate the basic requirement that routine medical research and procedures must be done with the voluntary cooperation of the subjects, who must be fully informed of the risks and benefits of the medical procedures in which they are involved. A state's interest may legitimately override that of the individual if failure to act will expose the population to a potentially life-threatening and contagious disease. Tooth decay does not qualify as such, and in fact, there are alternate forms of treatment for cavitation that are both individual and effective in both preventing and treating the disease as seems to be indicated by European countries that do not fluoridate, yet continue to see oral health that is comparable or better than that of the United States.

Due to the sometimes overwhelming complexity of the subject, several papers by qualified and credentialed individuals have been included with this proposal that cover both the scientific and legal arguments that demonstrate the practice of fluoridation is completely unnecessary and, in fact, illegal in its application. In order to facilitate a quick reference for the purposes of this document, the following is provided:

Major Arguments Against the Practice of Fluoridation

The level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is extremely low. At 0.004 ppm it is 250 times less than the average level added in fluoridation programs (1 ppm = 1 milligram per liter). Based on this single fact, it is extremely unlikely that the baby or infant needs fluoride to develop healthy teeth or any other tissue. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to saying that evolution screwed up on an infant’s dietary needs. In addition, it poses another question. Did nature have some reason to keep fluoride away from the infant? Put another way, is it not reckless to give to a bottle fed baby 250 times more fluoride, a known toxic substance - than it would otherwise get from mothers milk?

Mechanism of benefit is topical not systematic. Even ardent promoters of fluoridation like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now admit that the predominant benefits of fluoride – if any – are topical not systemic (CDC, 1999). It makes no sense to expose every tissue in the body to a toxic substance in order to deliver fluoride to a tissue that can be reached easily using topical means such as fluoridated toothpaste. Especially so since fluoridated toothpaste is universally available.

No difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. The fact that today, according to World Health Organization (WHO) figures, we cannot see significant differences in tooth decay in 12-year-olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. suggests that even if swallowing fluoride reduced tooth decay, it is not the most important factor out of many that can influence dental health. So why take the extreme measure of forcing fluoride on the whole population via the water supply? Clearly, other countries have found alternative methods of dealing with tooth decay in their populations.

No Margin of safety. There is absolutely no question that fluoride can damage health. Hundreds of studies in India, China and other countries with high natural levels of fluoride in their water, demonstrate this fact. The key issue in this debate is whether or not there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses that cause these health effects and the full range of doses people will get in a fluoridated area. In addition, that margin of safety would need to be sufficient to protect for the whole range of sensitivity expected for any toxic substance in a human population which contains, the very young, the very old, those with impaired kidney function, and those who have a poor diet, including borderline or outright iodine deficiency. By no stretch of the imagination is there an adequate margin of safety to protect for either the range of dose or the range of sensitivity, and certainly not both.

Fluoridation violates the Precautionary Principle. When we are exposing a whole population to a known highly toxic substance, if we wait for scientific proof of harm, so strong that not even invested interests can object to it, then it will be too late for millions of people if the warning signals prove to be valid. Thus a prudent public policy demands that we consider probabilities. How strong are the warning signals? We must look at the weight of evidence and make a judgment call. We must weigh the risks and benefits. How serious are the end points if we are right? How great are the loss in benefits if we are wrong? Our judgment is that a) the warning signals are strong for several adverse health effects, b) these adverse health effects are very serious, c) because there are safer and more appropriate alternatives, the evidence that ending this practice will lead to a negative outcome is small to non-existent. Thus fluoridation violates the Precautionary Principle.

Fluoridation violates the individual’s right to informed consent. In the unlikely event that it could be demonstrated that swallowing fluoride was both safe and effective, whether someone does so or not should be an individual or parental decision. While it may be attractive for public health enthusiasts to have the unusual short cut of putting this medicine in the public water system, thereby circumventing possible individual or parental neglect on this matter, taking that short cut is unethical. It simply violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medication. This is a precious ethical principle of modern medical practice derived from the Nuremberg Code from which all states have fashioned their guidelines on medical ethics. Here is an excerpt from the code:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiated, directs, or engaged in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

Fluoridation is a violation of Tennessee State law. By definition, fluoride is a non-approved (FDA) legend drug with toxic properties for which a prescription is required for dispensing by a qualified and licensed medical doctor. Fluoridating community water systems in Tennessee are dispensing and administering industrial grade products rather than pharmaceutical grade products. The State of Tennessee Department of Health, Oral Health Division clearly states in its web site that the purpose of adding fluoride is to create a physiological change in the human body for the purpose of preventing cavitation in teeth, thus clearly defining its use as a legend drug under the Tennessee Code of law. Every aspect of the use of legend drugs in Tennessee is assigned to the Tennessee Board of Pharmacy. By adding hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride to its customer's drinking water with no measured dosage per individual and no monitoring or prescription by qualified medical personnel, Metro Water Services is in clear violation of Tennessee statutes. Though multiple statutes apply under Chapter 53, a clear violation can be seen under 53-10-105 concerning the possession of a drug without having a prescription issued by a licensed medical practitioner or those listed under the exceptions.

Included Papers

The following response is from Metro Water Services in answer to a request for the latest costs for continuing the fluoridation program at both water processing plants in the Nashville-Davison County area:

February 12, 2009



Mr. Jack Cook
jcook56050(at)aol(dot)com

Dear Mr. Cook:

As per your request, Metro Water Services is pleased to provide you with the following information based on our costs for calendar year 2008:

1. Price per ton of hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride. If both are used, give a breakdown of the percentage used and cost of each.

For calendar year 2008, price per ton is as follows:
Hydrofluorosilicic acid: $590/ton
Sodium fluoride: $775.80/ton

Hydrofluorosilicic acid is used at the Unit 1 Treatment Plant and sodium fluoride is used at the Unit 2 Treatment Plant.

2. Price per ton of sodium hydroxide: $440/ton

3. Annual cost of fluoride chemicals.
a) Total cost for all areas served by Metro Water Services.
$343,885
b) Breakdown of cost for each unit serving Davidson County.
Unit 1 Plant: $147,085
Unit 2 Plant: $196,800

4. Annual cost of sodium hydroxide or, if used instead of NaOH, lime slurry.
a) Total cost for all areas served by Metro Water Services.
Lime: $8,343
b) Breakdown of cost for each unit serving Davidson County.
Unit 1 Plant: $8,343
Unit 2 Plant: $0

5. Quantity of hydrofluorosilicic acid purchase: 249.3 tons

6. Quantity of sodium hydroxide purchased: Sodium hydroxide is not added to the treatment process to adjust pH.
7. Number of employees employed full time in connection with the fluoridation program.

There are no treatment plant employees solely dedicated to the fluoridation program. The salaries listed in 9 (k) are indicative of the time it requires to run 24 total fluoride analyses per day, 12 per unit (treatment plant). If our fluoridation program ended today, it would not result in a reduction of staff.

8. Number of employees employed part time including supervisors, maintenance, plant operators, and monitoring in connection with the fluoridation program.
Zero
9. What is the annual cost of :
a) Equipment installation: estimated $100,000/one time cost – does not recur
b) Housing of materials: $0
c) Laboratory reagent for fluoride testing: $18,200.00
d) Hazardous waste disposal of used reagent: $0
e) Building maintenance: $0
f) Maintenance and repair of equipment: $30.00
g) Repairs for corrosion: $0
h) Gathering of samples: $41,610
i) Laboratory research: $0
j) Record keeping: $0
k) Personnel salaries: see h
l) An estimate of the cost of delivery of the chemicals as borne by the supplier:
unknown
m) Other costs: $0
10. Projected total cost to continue the fluoridation program in the next fiscal year.
$412,068

If you need any further information, please feel free to contact my office at (615) 862-4584.

Sincerely,



David M. Tucker
Water Services Assistant Director
Operations Division

Legend of included electronic documents:

Documents included in this listing are included as examples of the current arguments against the practice of fluoridation by qualified, credentialed, and competent authorities and researchers.


ASA2008Thiessen.pdf document by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen covering major points, 2008. Dr. Thiessen is the senior scientist for SENES Center for Risk Assessment in Oak Ridge. In 2006, she submitted a fully documented assessment of fluoride's adverse health effects to Governor Bredesen, whose administration has not responded as of this date.

Cheng-2007.pdf Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies, Article from bmj.com publishing, an analysis of public and professional points concerning the controversy, 2007.

Complaint Appendix A Lack of Benefit.doc appendix A from a complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy by Bill Osmuson, DDS, MPH of Washington State, 2008.

Complaint Appendix B exposure.doc appendix A from a complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy by Bill Osmuson, DDS, MPH of Washington State, 2008.

Complaint Appendix C Harm.doc appendix A from a complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy by Bill Osmuson, DDS, MPH of Washington State, 2008.

connett.limeback.pdf Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence. A systematic review, by Paul Connett, PhD, and Hardy Limeback, PhD., IADR 83rd General Session and Exhibition, July 4, 2008.

Fluoridation issues-Thiessen.r.doc Water Fluoridation: Suggested issues for consideration, a listing of issues for concern about water fluoridation by one of the authors of the National Research Council's report; Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, 2006.

NTEU CHAPTER 280 statement.doc, Why EPA Headquarters' Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation, Statement against water fluoridation by the NTEU Chapter of the union representing scientists and workers of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D. C., 1998

Risks-benefits-singles.pdf Fluoride: risks and benefits, Disinformation in the Service of Big Industry, by David Hill, P.Eng., University of Calgary, Canada. 1997.

RL33280 Congressional Report on Fluoride.pdf RL33280 Congressional Report on Fluoride, a report from the Congressional Research Service, by Mary Tiemann, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, your attention is strongly directed to the last three paragraphs of this document, 2008.

The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation.doc The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation, by Paul Connett, PhD, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network; http://www.FluorideAlert.org . References may be found here.

Violation of Medical Ethics-Cross 2003.pdf Fluoridation: a Violation of Medical Ethics and Human Rights, by Douglas W. Cross and Robert J. Carton, PhD (recipient of the Nobel Prize in Medicine for 2000), 2003.

Copies of these documents will be sent by request from jcook56050(at)aol(dot)com

An Addendum to the above presentation:

Consider that less than one percent of the water in our water utility system is actually used for drinking. The vast majority of our water is used for cleaning, cooking, industrial processes, watering lawns and many others that have nothing at all to do with ingestion. Most of our water ends up going down the drain or back into the environment where it once again becomes an unacknowledged pollutant. The substance does not magically go away. It accumulates in the ecosystem causing damage that has not been studied or evaluated.

Therefore, only a very small quantity of the fluoride substance actually reaches its intended demographic (young children as defined by the ADA), and the assumption is that every child will drink the same amount of water per day in order to be exposed to the recommended amount of fluoride. That is absolutely ludicrous on the face of it. Fluoridation (even if it works - and it most assuredly does not) is the most inefficient method of delivering a medication of any kind to a population. It is also the most medically unethical way of doing so.

Today I submitted a request to our Water Department here in Metro Nashville, Davidson County asking for statistics on how much their fluoridation program costs. This is in preparation for submitting an actual budget proposal to the Mayor's Office to ask for termination of our water fluoridation program. It seems absolutely insane to pay the fertilizer industry a hefty fee to help them dispose of a pollution by product that would otherwise be very expensive to dispose of. I'm curious how long our water department will drag their feet on this one.

It's going to be a long uphill battle on this issue. Our Health Department's Oral Health Division supports fluoridation with no hesitation or research to back them up. Instead, they simply quote the Centers for Disease Control, who actually do no research of their own.

The shear amount of information available from both sides of the issue is staggering. Yet, knowing what I now know about the practice after a year and four months of research makes me generally appalled at the continuance of our health department's promotion despite all the evidence of fluoride's adverse health effects. And, I very much disagree with the collection of court cases that have determined that fluoridation is a proper exercise of state police powers for the good of a larger population. How do you legally justify placing a pollution by product into a resource that is so basic to human life with the expectation that it will affect everyone in the same manner? That's quite ludicrous.

We are in the unique position of helping to stop a practice that has very clear adverse health effects, especially in children and at risk groups such as kidney and cancer patients.
I recommend that you look carefully at the scientific data and legal arguments at www.FluorideAlert.org then read the well researched work by Christopher Bryson, "The Fluoride Deception."
I personally have not found any of the arguments based upon scientific information or legality to be either confusing nor problematic. Everything points clearly toward the fact that fluoridation in the world MUST be stopped to protect the health of our citizens. Every day you will see more and more health professionals at the Fluoride Action Network signing on to a petition to end this outdated and risky practice. These are not simply activists, but doctors, nurses, and other degreed professionals who all understand the issue very clearly. One of our supporters, Dr. Arvid Carlson, is a scientist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for 2000. So, we aren't just a group of crazies shouting in the wilderness.
Most of Europe does not fluoridate, and you will find that statistics show their dental health to be comparable, if not better, to that of America. In fact, European governments use the simple argument that fluoridation is mass medication using a non-approved drug without measured dose or prescription and without monitoring by a licensed health professional. This one argument makes the practice illegal in every state in our Union.
In fact, the reasons for not using fluoride are so numerous, they can get a bit overwhelming at times.
My family and I ceased using fluoridated water and switched to distilled water over a year ago. Prior to that we had experienced about 25 years of "mysterious" medical symptoms for which my doctors could find no cause. Within one week of getting off our fluoridated city tap water, all of those symptoms faded. We've been free of any kind of problems, including the usual flu virus periods ever since. So, my experience is not only from study, but also from experience. It is estimated that approximately five percent of the population is particularly sensitive to very low doses of fluoride. It turns out that I am one of them. I would prefer to stay healthy, but there is so much fluoride in our foods and environment that I find it difficult to avoid it entirely.
You should also note that the EPA Headquarters Union representing more than 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professionals in Washington, D.C. continue to work against fluoridation. Their statement can be found at:

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

Upon reading that statement, I think you will discover that not everyone working in health related government agencies are pushing fluoride so strongly.

What's in the Tap Water ?

Photos of condensed water from distillation
Source: Metro Nashville, Tennessee Water System



















Raw Concentrate from 30 gallons of distilled water
With some settled mineral content removed

















Raw Concentrate and settled particulate











Detail

Water Quality Table for this system:
MWS tests for 105 contaminants that may be present in drinking water. The tables below show those contaminants that were detected January 1 through December 31, 2006. Source of data: Nashville Water Department


























Note: The "source" of Fluoride above is listed as a reason for the supplement (water additive that promotes strong teeth) rather than the true source of the contaminant. Most of the fluoride used in public water systems is hydrofluorosilicic acid which is collected as a pollution by product from the phosphate fertilizer industry along with other regulated substances that are considered hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is illegal to dump this extremely toxic substance in any body of water in the United States. However, if it is collected and placed in rubber lined tankers and trucked around the country to water utilities, it magically becomes a product. It is somehow widely accepted to dilute it, and place it in public drinking water. This substance is extremely toxic and the 23 percent slurry solution from the phosphate mines can actually burn through concrete. If accidentally spilled, extraordinary hazmat procedures must be taken to clean up and dispose of the substance.

FLUORIDE

To begin this new set of posts, it may be best to republish this Paper by Dr. Paul Connett which was originally published at www.FluorideAlert.org a collaborative site that publishes relevant public information concerning Fluoride and the current state of research concerning its effects. The below article is one of the finest and most credible comments on the subject:

The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation

By Paul Connett, PhD

Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so "safe and effective" that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.

For over 50 years U.S. government officials have confidently and enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is "safe and effective." However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming. To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical from the scientific arguments.

For those for which ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply not ethical; we simply shouldn't be forcing medication on people without their "informed consent."

The bad news is that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington, DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are buttressed by solid common sense arguments and scientific studies which convincingly show that fluoridation is neither "safe and effective" nor necessary. I have summarized the arguments in several categories:

Fluoridation is unethical because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.

2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.

3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.

4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.

5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication -- of the type 1 tablet three times a day -- to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."

As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."

Fluoridation is unnecessary because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.

2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.

3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the U.S., if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.

4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm, which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).

5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is ineffective because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).

2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85 percent of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).

3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).

4) The largest survey conducted in the U.S. showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).

5) The worst tooth decay in the U.S. occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.

6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is unsafe because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.

2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin, a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).

3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 percent and 50 percent of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).

4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.

5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).

6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).

7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the U.S. not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.

8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is inequitable because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.

2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition, which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).

3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is inefficient and not cost-effective because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.

2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance that has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottled water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is unscientifically promoted. For example:

1) In 1950, the U.S. Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.

2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so-called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.

3) The U.S. Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50 percent of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.

4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.

5) No U.S. agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).

6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is not defendable in open public debate.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the U.S. and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature.

This second hand information produces second-rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.

Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets,' do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues.

As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the U.S. Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"

Motivations -- especially those that have operated over several generations of decision makers -- are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:

a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.

b) The failure of 80 percent of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.

c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.

d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage that fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'

e) The failure of the U.S. EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water that can be scientifically defended.

f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.

So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests that stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless essential -- in order to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm -- that the U.S. government begin to move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly absurd, status quo on this issue. There are precedents. They were able to do this with hormone replacement therapy.

But getting any honest action out of the U.S. government on this is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood -- science can sharpen the nail but we need the weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to educate the American people and then recruiting their help to put sustained pressure on our political representatives.

At the very least we need a moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means turning off the tap for a few months) until there has been a full Congressional hearing on the key issues with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. With the issue of education we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key studies are available on the Internet (http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html) and there are videotaped interviews with many of the scientists and protagonists whose work has been so important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue (see Videos at http://www.fluoridealert.org).

With this new information, more and more communities are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the local level. On the national level, there have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other national groups to get involved in order to make this the national issue it desperately needs to be.

I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they can't then I hope they will get off the fence and help end one of the silliest policies ever inflicted on U.S. citizens. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation without further delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation represents a very powerful "belief system" backed up by special interests and by entrenched governmental power and influence.

Paul Connett, PhD

All references cited can be found at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/biblio.html