On September 5, 2000, EPA Assistant Administrator Charles Fox informed the House Committee on Science that “there are no water quality criteria for fluoride either for protection of aquatic life or for the protection of human health.”
In a July 7, 2000 letter to Congress, the National Sanitation Foundation International (NSFI) reported that its tests indicated that the most common contaminant detected in the fluoridation product is arsenic and that occurred about five times more frequently than any other contaminant.
The NSFI showed that the average arsenic levels in the fluoridation agent were well above the “maximum allowable level” for water treatment chemicals.
In 1999, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) subcommittee review concluded that the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic was “grossly inadequate for protecting public health.” The EPA’s exposure level of 50 parts per billion (ppb) was set back in 1942 “before arsenic was known to cause cancer.”
With arsenic now classified as a Class 1 human carcinogen, the EPA has proposed reducing the MCL from 50 ppb to 5 ppb. The decision to drastically reduce permitted arsenic levels also was prompted by numerous studies showing that low concentrations of arsenic in the drinking water can cause prostate, skin, bladder, kidney, liver and lung cancers.
The non-cancerous effects include skin pigmentation and callous-like skin growths, damage to reproductive/developmental functions, and a host of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hormonal, hematological, pulmonary, neurological, and immunological problems.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has challenged the EPA to abandon its support for water fluoridation chemicals and has proposed lowering the federal MCL standard for arsenic to 3 ppb.
According to NRDC estimates (based on National Academy of Science data), the EPA’s 50-ppb arsenic standard could account for one cancer in every 100 people who drink two liters of water a day.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) sets and implements water quality standards for all water treatment chemicals. In the October 2000 issue of AWWA’s journal, Opflow, C. Wang, D.B. Smith, and G.M. Huntly describe how “Treatment Chemicals Contribute to Arsenic Levels.”
The authors report that if the EPA standard for arsenic were set at 5 ppb, about 10 percent of the MCL for arsenic exposure would come directly from water treatment chemicals. They concluded that, even if the MCL was set at the NRDC’s 3 ppb limit, “about 90 percent of the arsenic that would be contributed by treatment would be attributed to fluoride addition.”
The NRDC admits that “even a relatively strict arsenic standard of 3 ppb could pose a fatal cancer risk several times higher than EPA has traditionally accepted in drinking water.” The NAS has determined that just .5 ppb of arsenic in water “presents the highest cancer risk EPA traditionally allows in tap water.”
Recent epidemiological work from Finland found that people drinking water with 0.1 to 0.5 ppb arsenic had approximately 50 percent greater-than-average risk of getting bladder cancer. This is exactly the range of arsenic we can expect to add to the water from the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid.
This is particularly concerning in light of the fact that over the past several decades there has been a steady rise in the incidence of bladder cancer in the U.S. Currently, it is the 6th most common cancer in the U.S. and the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in white males. There are over 53, 000 Americans diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, and about 12,000 die annually of this disease.
http://www.ca-bayareaurology.com/bladder_cancer.asp
http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/rates12.html
Using NAS data, the NRDC estimates the risk of developing fatal cancers from drinking water with 3 ppb arsenic would be 1 in 10,000. The EPA’s normal risk-standard for chemical exposure is 1 in 1,000,000.
This is what the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agencies) Headquarters own Professionals’ Union has to say about fluoride/fluoridation of drinking water:
“Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last 11 years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicates a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology… the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance (fluoride) to the public water supply… for which there is virtually no evidence of significant benefits… and substantial evidence of harm.”
— National Federation of Federal Employees Union (Local 2050), Washington, DC, July 1997
On March 20, in an unexpected and disturbing move, President Bush ordered “EPA Administrator” Christie Todd Whiteman to rescind the Clinton Administration’s decision to lower arsenic levels to the prevailing world standard.
Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon In the Northwest US and British Columbia:
In recent year, the medical community and health professionals have been strong supporters of low-fat diets including cold-water fish, especially wild, Pacific Salmon. However, this species of fish are threatened with endangerment. Fluoridation both from industry and run-off from community water supplies are now being scrutinized.
Writing in the quarterly magazine, The New Pacific, in January 1994, Joseph Cone reported that the annual migration of salmon in the Snake-Columbia River system had declined over the past century from an estimated 10-16 million to 2 million in 1991. He pointed out that “the problem is enormously complex – biologically, administratively and economically.” His article and reports in the media have stressed problems with harvesting; loss of habitat through poor forestry practices, livestock and human settlement; and dams built for power and irrigation. Little emphasis is placed on the effects of pollution of water by toxic substances such as fluoride.
The aluminum industry is the chief beneficiary of power dams on the Columbia River System, and it is the fluoride wastes from smelters that first come to mind as sources of fluoride pollution. However, there is another potential source of contamination – the artificial fluoridation of community water supplies for the avowed purpose of improving dental health. (Foulkes RG, Anderson AC. Impact of artificial fluoridation on salmon in the northwest US and British Columbia. Earth Island Journal).
You must log in to post a comment.