According to a study published in the July 1997 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), new research suggests that young children may be getting more fluoride than they need through baby foods.

“Our main concern is that these young children could be at increased risk for mild to moderate dental fluorosis by ingesting too much fluoride,” says Steven M. Levy, DDS, one of the authors of the JADA study from the College of Dentistry at the University of Iowa. 

In Taber’s Medical Dictionary, the definition of fluorosis is: “Chronic fluorine poisoning, sometimes marked by mottling of the tooth enamel.  Often results from too much fluoride in the drinking water.”   The tooth mottling occurs on permanent teeth while they are still still forming. Using instances of dental fluorosis as an indicator, poor children are affected at a rate of 2.3 : 1 as compared to children from higher income families.  This ratio suggests that the toxic contaminants associated with fluosilicic acid would also affect children’s health in the same proportion

“It’s important for parents to know how much fluoride their children are getting, whether it’s through the water supply, fluoride supplements, fluoridated toothpaste or baby food,” Dr. Levy stated.

The researchers analyzed the fluoride concentration of 238 commercially available infant foods. They took samples for analysis from 206 ready-to-eat infant foods and 32 dry infant cereals, which they prepared with water according to the manufacturer’s directions. 

The results of the analysis reveal ready-to-eat foods with chicken had the highest fluoride concentrations.

One of the reasons for the high fluoride concentrations in infant foods with chicken may be because of the processing method, according to the study. The mechanical deboning process may leave skin and residual bone particles in the food. Much of fluoride is stored in bone; therefore, the higher concentrations in the chicken-containing products. 

The researchers also found that dry infant cereals that are reconstituted with fluoridated water may noticeably increase the levels of fluoride in a child’s daily intake.

“What we found in this study is fluoride concentrations for the majority of all the products tested varied widely because of the different water sources used to process the foods,” Dr. Levy explains. “The differences can be traced to the manufacturing sites that use a fluoridated municipal water supply as compared to a non-fluoridated city or well water.”

 The American Dental Association reminds consumers that drinking water fluoridated at the recommended level or eating foods prepared or processed with fluoridated water is safe and effective (“ADA warns: fluoride risk in baby food”.  1997  The American Dental Association, Chicago, IL.) 

Not All Water Is Created Equally 

Walk down a grocery aisle in any town in the US, Canada, Europe, or Asia and there is a virtual tidal wave of bottled water brands.  This worldwide 35 billion-dollar industry continues to grow as water quality concerns, and health and fitness awareness increases. 

To understand the various types of bottled waters one must scrutinize the label.  Water regulations set for bottled water companies turn out to be less strict than those for tap water.  The FDA only regulates water quality for bottle beverages that are sold across the nation.  60% to 70% of all bottled water companies generate their products within each state.  Over forty percent of all bottled waters that are designated “spring water” may contain a large amount of filtered or chemically treated water.   Bottled water safety regulations allow for some contamination by fecal waste and parasites.  The actual source of bottled water is not always made clear – some bottled water marketing is misleading, implying the water comes from pristine sources when it does not. 

In order to get the best water it is going to be necessary to understand a bit of important information about water sources.  There are several sources of water.  

Artesian well water is sealed in a rock aquifer and sits above the underground water table.  

Glacier water comes from very high mountain regions above populated areas.  

Spring water comes from an underground well or river that is not embedded in rock.  Rivers, lakes, streams, and rains are other water sources that are not naturally protected.

Artesian well sources are the best protected from man-made pollutants because they are sealed in the earth before being harvested.  Glacier water sources are usually out of reach of common ground level pollutants, but are subjected to air contaminants.  Spring or well water sources are typically exposed to common ground runoff and other chemicals in processing.  Rivers, lakes and streams are the least reliable of all bottled water sources.

In short, the most popular brand of bottled water will always be changing with market trends, but the source will not.  The best choices are to get Artesian or glacier water before spring water.  Alternatively you may wish to choose a home delivery service that will distill your water, requiring only that you follow up by adding liquid minerals back to the bottle.  Any brand of liquid mineral, acquired at a health food store, is acceptable.  As far as we know there are no strict artesian well water home delivery services, but that would be the best choice!

Water is a vital key to health and well- being.  With bottlers selling millions of gallons a year, any level of interest in clean water is a liquid asset.  Water is essential for healing  and a good water source may make the difference between consistent wellness and endless frustration.  Perhaps Benjamin Franklin, who was the first to import bottled water to the US in 1785, may have seen the glimmer of the water boom when he said, “We may only know the worth of water when the well is dry.”

The costs and health effects of osteoporotic fractures in the US are enormous. The total cost of fracture care is now about $9 billion/year. It is estimated that about 350,000 hip fractures occur per year and the incidence is rising. 

A study by the University of Iowa’s Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, calculated that the lifetime risk of a fracture of the hip, spine or distal forearm is almost 40% in white women and 13% in men from age 50 years onward. Hip fractures account for 87-100% of fracture-related nursing home placements and 87-96% of short-term fracture costs. 

In an effort to treat osteoporosis and prevent hip fracture, some doctors administer “therapeutic” doses of fluoride. Four US studies have examined the effect of these “therapeutic” doses and all of them found that, even though bone density appeared to increase, hip fracture rates increased within three years of treatment. In addition, all reported significant periarticular joint pain and gastrointestinal side effects in the treated subjects. 

Dr. L. V. Avioli, Shoenberg Professor of Medicine at the Washington University School of Medicine, concluded that “sodium fluoride is accompanied by so many medical complications and side effects that it is hardly worth exploring in depth as a therapeutic mode for post-menopausal osteoporosis.” Dr. Saul Genuth, chairman of the FDA advisory committee that analyzed the fluoride/fracture findings, was quoted in the Medical World News as saying the FDA “should quietly forget about fluoride.”

More recently, attention has shifted to lower dosages of fluoride, such as found in fluoridated water.(Lee JR, Fluoride Vol. 26 No. 4, pages 274-277, 1993).

The suggestion is that the hip needs tensile strength, but that this is destroyed by fluoride.(A Clear and Present Danger, by Bob Woffinden, The London Guardian 1997).

There are now at least eight studies that showed an increase of hip fracture incidence in fluoridated communities. They are summarized here: 

In 1986, M.R. Sowers et al., in a retrospective study, found an increased fracture rate in both pre- and postmenopausal women relative to their water fluoride exposure. 

In 1991, M.R. Sowers et al. completed a prospective study again showing that water fluoride was correlated with more than double the unfluoridated fracture rates. 

In 1991, Jacobsen et al. showed a very strong positive correlation of hip fracture to fluoridation. 

In 1991, C. Cooper et al. showed a statistically significant increase of hip fracture incidence in England relative to fluoride content of drinking water ranging from 0 to 1 mg/L [ppm]. 

Also in 1991, C. Keller compared hip fracture rates in 216 US counties with natural fluoride concentrations in drinking water and found significantly higher fracture rates in counties with fluoride levels of >1.2 ppm. 

D.S. May and M.G. Wilson reported finding that, as the percentage of persons exposed to fluoride in water increased, the hip fracture rate generally increased. 

In 1992, C. Danielson et al reported that the risk of hip fracture was approximately 30% higher for women and 40% higher for men in fluoridated communities. Among women at age 75, the risk was about twice as high in fluoridated communities.

Here is what the Journal of the American Medical Association had to say about this study in relation to others on this topic:

“The findings of this report support other epidemiologic studies suggesting that fluoride increases the risk of hip fracture.”

– Journal of the American Medical Association 

In 1995, H. Jaqmin-Gedda et al, scientists from the University of Bordeaux, France, studied hip fracture rates in 75 civil parishes in southwestern France and found (after adjustment for multiple alternative variables) an increased risk [odds ratio] for hip fracture of 1.86, i.e., 86% more likely, in parishes with water fluoride levels higher than 0.11 ppm.

In 1992, orthopedic surgeon Carl L. Stanitski observed: “We are seeing more and more stress fractures in children and more and more injuries caused by repetitive use.” Some might argue that overuse and too much training are the cause, but others are concerned that something is causing defective bone and connective tissue of US kids, and that something might well be fluoridation. 

Dr. Lee ,in the Journal Fluoride, concluded that all the studies of fracture rates relative to long-term fluoridation exposure indicate a significant increase in fracture risk from fluoridation. The increased fracture risk due to fluoridation appears to range from 40-100%, depending on the age of the subjects studied. For women in their seventh decade who have been exposed to life-long fluoridation, the risk of hip fracture is approximately doubled. The risk increases with fluoride concentration at all levels over 0.11 ppm. Increased bone and connective tissue injuries of US youngsters should alert us to the probability that our high fluoride environment is adversely affecting our youngsters as well as our elderly.

( Lee JR.  Fluoride Vol. 26 No. 4, pages 274-277, 1993).

A Question of Ethics:

“A review of recent scientific literature reveals a consistent pattern of evidence – hip fractures, skeletal fluorosis, the effect of fluoride on bone structure, fluoride levels in bones and osteosarcomas – pointing to the existence of causal mechanisms by which fluoride damages bones…. ethical question: [Fluoridation] proponents must come to grips with a serious ethical question:  Is it right to put fluoride in drinking water and to mislead the community that fluoride must be ingested, when any small benefit is due to the topical action of fluoride on teeth.”

- Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 1997

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).

In fluoridated areas, drinking water obtained from surface water with an average fluoride concentration of 0.1-0.2 ppm is raised to the “optimal” level of 0.7-1.2 ppm by the addition of sodium fluoride, hydrofluosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride. [Note: In 1985, the EPA raised the Maximum Contaminant Level to 4 ppm.] 

Fluoride, in community drinking water, enters the fresh water ecosystem in various ways. Surface run-off from fire-fighting, washing cars, and watering gardens may enter streams directly or through storm sewers at optimal concentration, 0.7-1.2 ppm. Most enters during waste water treatment.

 Masuda studied a large number of cities and calculated the concentrations in waste water that were in excess of the concentration present in the cities’ water supplies. In raw sewage, this was 1.30 ppm; primary treatment reduced this slightly to 1.28 ppm; secondary treatment to 0.39 ppm. Singer and Armstrong found 0.38 ppm in unfluoridated sewage and 1.16-1.25 ppm in fluoridated sewage. 

It is clear that, in the case of artificially fluoridated communities, the concentration of fluoride in both surface run-off and sewer effluent exceeds 0.2 ppm. 

Studies show that elevated concentrations in fresh water receiving fluoridated effluent may persist for some distance. Bahls showed that effluent containing 0.6-2.0 ppm discharged into the East Galletin River from the city of Bozeman, Montana, did not return to the background level of 0.33 ppm for 5.3 km [3.3 mi.]. Singer and Armstrong reported that a distance of 16 km [9.9 mi.] was required to return the Mississippi River to its background level of 0.2 ppm after receiving the effluent of 1.21 ppm from Minneapolis-St Paul.

From information that is available, 0.2 ppm in the fresh water ecosystem in the US Northwest and British Columbia appears to be the appropriate safe level for salmon species rather than the 1.5 ppm now accepted. Decreases in water volume and/or flow velocity have the potential to increase fluoride concentration. Increased water temperature will enhance fluoride toxicity. Fluoridation deserves to be looked at as a component of “critical habitat” along with the more publicized factors.

Smelters vs. Salmon:

In a field study, Damkaer and Dey demonstrated that high salmon loss at John Day Dam on the Columbia River, 1982-1986, was caused by the inhibition of migration by fluoride contamination from an aluminum smelter located 1.6 km [one mile] above the dam. In 1982, the average daily discharge of fluoride was 384 kg and the salmon loss was 55%. In 1985, discharge averaged 49 kg and was accompanied by a concentration of 0.2 ppm and a salmonid loss of 5%. 

Damkaer and Dey confirmed the cause-and-effect relationship by means of a two-choice flume for fluoride gradient salmon behavior tests. These determined that the “critical level” was 0.2 ppm. 

There are other studies that indicate that fluoride at levels below 1.5 ppm have lethal and other adverse effects on fish. Delayed hatching of rainbow trout have occurred at 1.5 ppm; brown mussels have died at 1.4 ppm; an alga (Porphyria tenera) was killed by a four-hour fumigation with fluoride with a critical concentration of 0.9 ppm; and, levels below 0.1 ppm were shown to be lethal to the water flea, Daphnia magna. These latter two studies suggest that salmon species also may be affected by fluoride-induced reduction of food supply. 

Documents used in a 1961 court case involving Meader’s Trout farm in Pocatello, Idaho, contain evidence that between 1949 and 1950 trout damage and loss was related to fluoride contamination due to rain washing airborne particles from leaves into hatchery water at levels as low as 0.5 ppm. This evidence suggests that the “safe level” of fluoride in the fresh water habitat of salmon species is not 1.5 ppm but, 0.2 ppm.

In 1982, preliminary studies conducted by CZES Division personnel suggested that the fish-passage delays on the John Day Dam might be related to contaminants discharged at an aluminum smelter outfall located on the Washington shore upstream from John Day Dam. In particular, high concentrations of fluoride in the vicinity of John Day Dam (0.3-0.5 mg/L in 1982) prompted investigators to focus sampling and research efforts on this contaminant. 

In 1983 and 1984, behavior tests were conducted in which over 600 returning salmonids (chinook, coho, and chum salmon) were captured and tested with different concentrations of fluoride in a two-choice flume located in the spawning channel of Big Beef Creek, Washington. The conclusion from these experiments was that the behavior of upstream-migrating adult salmon would be adversely affected by fluoride concentrations of about 0.5 mg/L and that concentrations of 0.2 mg F/L were at or below the threshold for fluoride sensitivity of chinook and coho salmon. 

Beginning in 1983 and continuing through 1986, fluoride discharges from the aluminum plant were greatly reduced. With the reduction in fluoride discharged from the aluminum plant, there was a corresponding drop in fluoride concentrations in the river near the outfall and John Day Dam. Concurrently, fish passage delays and interdam losses of adult salmon decreased to acceptable levels( Dey DB, Damkaer DM. 1993.  Flouride Effects on Salmon at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982-1986. Northwest American Journal of Fisheries Management, 9:156-162). 

Snake River Salmon:

A review of the US Department of Health and Human Services publication, Fluoridation Census 1985, shows that along the course of the Snake River from the Idaho-Wyoming border to its junction with the Columbia River in Washington State, there are three water systems fluoridated at 1.0 ppm. Eight artificially fluoridated water systems are located on the banks of the Columbia from the Canadian border to the mouth. That is, a total of 11 artificially fluoridated communities are located along the Columbia-Snake River system. Has this played a role in the catastrophic decline in salmonid stocks in this once highly productive ecosystem?

The decline in salmon stocks, especially Chinook and Coho, is a major economic problem for both commercial and sporfisheries. “Critical habitat restrictions” are currently being formulated. In the US, the Chinook salmon is being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. In BC, the Kemano II hydroelectric project is currently “on hold” and severe restrictions have been placed on the harvesting of both Cinook and Coho salmon. There has been no change in the “permissible level” of 1.5 ppm fluoride in either the US or Canada.

 There are many questions, but until evidence to the contrary is available, based on impartial field studies, in order to protect salmon species in the US Northwest and British Columbia, the “critical level” of fluoride in fresh water should be 0.2 mgF/L. 

The strategy for eliminating unacceptable levels of fluoride from the “critical habitat” of Northwest Pacific salmon consists of the immediate banning of artificial fluoridation and the rapid sun setting of the current disposal practices of fluoride-producing industries.

(Foulkes RG, Anderson AC. Impact of artificial fluoridation on salmon in the northwest US and British Columbia.  Earth Island Journal).

In 1996, the Journal of Clinical Toxicology compared the serum testosterone concentrations in patients with skeletal flurosis, in order to assess the hormonal status in fluoride toxicity.  Serum testosterones were compared for patients afflicted with skeletal flurosis (n=30) and healthy males consuming water containing less than 1ppm fluoride (Control 1, n = 26) and a second category of controls (Control 2, n= 16): individuals living in the same house as the patients and consuming the same water as the patients, but not exhibiting clinical manifestations of skeletal fluorosis. 

Circulating serum testosterones in skeletal fluorosis patients were significantly lower than those of Control 1 (p<0.01).  Control 2 were also lower than Control 1 (p<0.05), but were higher than those of the patient group.  Conclusion:  Decreased testosterone concentrations in skeletal fluorosis patients and in males drinking the same water as the patients, but with no clinical manifestations of the disease compared with those of normal, healthy males living in areas nonendemic for fluorosis suggest that fluoride toxicity may cause adverse effects in the reproductive system of males living in fluorosis endemic areas. ( Susheela AK, Jethanandani P. 1996. Circulating testosterone levels in skeletal fluorosis patients.  J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 34(2):183-9).

Cities all over the US purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh pollution concentrate from Florida – fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) – to fluoridate water. 

Fluorosilicic acid is composed of tetrafluorosiliciate gas and other species of fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers and concentrated into a 23% solution during wet process phosphate fertilizer manufacture. Generally, the acid is stored in outdoor cooling ponds before being shipped to US cities to artificially fluoridate drinking water. 

Fluoridating drinking water with recovered pollution is a cost-effective means of disposing of toxic waste. The fluorosilicic acid would otherwise be classified as a hazardous toxic waste on the Superfund Priorities List of toxic substances that pose the most significant risk to human health and the greatest potential liability for manufacturers. 

The resulting toxic waste cannot be diluted by 1 million or even 3 million or 10 million to 1 and dumped in the ocean or river or landfill, nor allowed to escape into the air because it would kill all the plants and animals and people. And it can’t be given away because it would still be classified as a Class I toxic waste and have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon, or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium, and arsenic are also present.

But, if destined for a water district that will pay $0.35 to $0.45 per gallon for transportation, the 23% solution in industrial waste water is magically pronounced benign and shipped, untreated, to be mixed into our water.

If it was not a hazardous waste, it could have been added to salt or some other universally accessible food source, just like iodine was, more than fifty years ago. Each of us would then be free to choose for ourselves.

http://se1.com/hr/archive/floride.htm 

Phosphate fertilizer suppliers have more than $10 billion invested in production and mining facilities in Florida. Phosphate fertilizer production accounts for $800 million in wages per year. Florida’s mines produce 30% of the world supply and 75% of the US supply of phosphate fertilizers. Much of the country’s supply of fluorosilicic acid for water fluoridation is also produced in Florida. 

Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and mining are not environment friendly operations. Fluorides and radionuclides are the primary toxic pollutants from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer in Central Florida. People living near the fertilizer plants and mines, experience lung cancer and leukemia rates that are double the state average. Much of West Central Florida has become a toxic waste dump for phosphate fertilizer manufacturers. Federal and state pollution regulations have been modified to accommodate phosphate fertilizer production and use: These regulations have included using recovered pollution for water fluoridation. 

Radium wastes from filtration systems at phosphate fertilizer facilities are among the most radioactive types of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) wastes. The radium wastes are so concentrated, they cannot be disposed of at the one US landfill licensed to accept NORM wastes, so manufacturers dump the radioactive wastes in acidic ponds atop 200-foot-high gypsum stacks. The federal government has no rules for its disposal. 

During the late 1960s, fluorine emissions were damaging crops, killing fish and causing crippling skeletal fluorosis in livestock. The EPA became concerned and enforced regulations requiring manufacturers to install pollution scrubbers. At that time, the facilities were dumping the concentrated pollution directly into waterways leading into Tampa Bay. 

“In 1969, a massive fish kill that turned Placentia Bay, Newfoundland into “a biological desert” was traced to fluoride effluent from a plant that produced elemental phosphorus for metal finishing and consumer goods.  Some 22,800 pounds of fluoride effluent poured into the bay each day, primarily in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid, the same substance used to fluoridate city water supplies” (Smith G. Why Fluoride is an Environmental Issue, Earth Island Journal).

According to US Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 380:  “ Airborne fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant.”

The handbook lists symptoms of fluoride toxicity (fluorosis) which include:  dental mottling, respiratory distress, stiffness in knees and elbows or both…” and concludes by stating that “man is much more sensitive than domestic animals to F [fluoride] intoxication.”

Not Your Grandmothers Phosphate
In the late 1960s, EPA chemist Ervin Bellack worked out the ideal solution to a monumental pollution problem. Because recovered phosphate fertilizer manufacturing waste contain about 19% fluorine, Bellack concluded that the concentrated “scrubber liquor” could be a perfect water fluoridation agent. It was a liquid and easily soluble in water, unlike sodium fluoride, a waste product from aluminum manufacturing, it was also inexpensive. 

Fate also intervened, the aluminum industry, which previously supplied sodium fluoride for water fluoridation, was facing a shortage of fluorspar used in smelting aluminum. Consequently, there was a shortage of sodium fluoride to fluoridate drinking water. 

For the phosphate fertilizer industry, the shortage of sodium fluoride was the key to turning red ink into black and an environmental liability into a perceived asset. With the help of the EPA, fluorosilicic acid was transformed from a concentrated toxic waste and a liability into a “proven cavity fighter.” 

The EPA and the US Public Health Service waived all testing procedures and – with the help of the American Dental Association (ADA) – encouraged cities to add the radioactive concentrate into America’s drinking water as an “improved” form of fluoride. 

The product is not “fluorine” or “fluoride” as proponents state: It is a pollution concentrate. Fluorine is only one captured pollutant comprising about 19% of the total product. 

By 1983, the official EPA policy was expressed by EPA Office of Water Deputy Administrator Rebecca Hanmer as follows: “In regard to the use of fluosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.” 

Glowing Reviews

In promoting the use of the pollution concentrate as a fluoridation agent, the ADA, Federal agencies and manufacturers failed to mention that it was radioactive. Whenever uranium is found in nature as a component of a mineral, a host of other radionuclides are always found in the mineral in various stages of decay. Uranium and all of its decay-rate products are found in phosphate rock, fluorosilicic acid and phosphate fertilizer. 

During wet-process manufacturing, trace amounts of radium and uranium are captured in the pollution scrubber. This process was the subject of an article by H.F. Denzinger, H. J. König and G.E. Krüger in the fertilizer industry journal, Phosphorus & Potassium (No. 103, Sept./Oct. 1979) and discussed how radionuclides are carried into the fluorosilicic acid. 

While the uranium and radium in fluorosilicic acid are known carcinogens, two decay products of uranium are even more carcinogenic: radon-222 and polonium-210. 

During the acidulation process that creates phosphoric acid, radon gas contained in the phosphate pebble can be released in greater proportions than other decay-rate products (radionuclides) and carried over into the fluorosilicic acid. Polonium may also be captured in greater quantities during scrubbing operations because, like radon, it can readily combine with fluoride. 

In written communications to the author, EPA Office of Drinking Water official Joseph A. Cotruvo and Public Health Service fluoridation engineer, Thomas Reeves have acknowledged the presence of radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid. 

Radon-222 is not an immediate threat because it stops emitting alpha radiation and decays into lead-214 in 3.86 days. Lead-214 appears to be harmless but it eventually decays into bismuth-214 and then into polonium-214. Unless someone knew to look for specific isotopes, no one would know that a transmutation into the polonium isotope had occurred. 

Polonium-210, a decay product of bismuth-210, has a half-life of 138 days and gives off intense alpha radiation as it decays into regular lead and becomes stable. Any polonium-210 that might be present in the phosphate concentrate could pose a significant health threat. A very small amount of polonium-210 can be very dangerous, giving off 5,000 times more alpha radiation than the same amount of radium. As little as 0.03 microcuries (6.8 trillionths of a gram) of polonium-210 can be carcinogenic to humans. 

The lead isotope behaves like calcium in the body. It may be stored in the bones for years before turning into polonium-210 and triggering a carcinogenic release of alpha radiation.

Drinking water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid contains radon at every sequence of its decay to polonium. The fresher the pollution concentrate, the more polonium it will contain.

As long as the amount of contaminants added to the drinking water (including radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid) do not exceed the limits set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has no regulatory problem with the use of any contaminated products for drinking water treatment.

Big Risks: No Tests

Despite the increased cancer risk from using phosphate waste to fluoridate drinking water, neither the EPA nor the Centers for Disease Control have ever commissioned or required any clinical studies with the pollution concentrate, specifically, the hexafluorsilicate radical whose toxicokinetic properties are different than the lone, fluoride ion. 

“Dean Burk, for many decades Chief Chemist at the National Cancer Institute, testified at congressional hearings in 1981 stating that over 40,000 cancer deaths in that year were attributable to fluoridation. He has said that no chemical causes as much cancer, and faster, than fluorides. Public health officials are quick to say that this data is not verified, which is entirely untrue, for international research as well as congressional hearings and court proceedings HAVE verified this information.”

(Hirzy JW.  2005 Jan.  “Why the EPA’s Headquarter’s Professionals’ Union Opposes Fluoridation”).

Section 104 (I) (5) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) directs the Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the EPA, the Public Health Service and the National Toxicology Program to initiate a program of research on fluoride safety. However, after almost 30 years of using fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate to fluoridate the drinking water, not one study has been commissioned. 

The fluoride ion only hypothetically exists as an entity in an ideal solution of purified water – and tap water is far from pure H₂O. All clinical research with animal models is done using 99.97% pure sodium fluoride and double distilled or deionized water. Among the thousands of clinical studies about fluoride, not one has been done with the pollution concentrate or typical tap water containing fluorides. 

Synergy Soup

The fluorosilicic acid is also contaminated with small traces of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead, sulfates, iron and phosphorous, not to mention radionuclides. Some contaminants have the potential to react with the hexafluorosilicate radical and may act as complex ionic compounds. The biological fates and toxicokinetic properties of these complex ions are unknown. 

The reality of artificial water fluoridation is so complex that determining the safety of the practice may be impossible. Tap water is chemically treated with chlorine, soluble silicates, phosphate polymers and many other chemicals. In addition, the source water itself may contain a variety of contaminants. 

The addition of a fluoridation agent can create synergized toxicants in a water supply that have unique toxico-kinetic properties found only in that particular water supply. Consequently, any maladies resulting from chronic ingestion of the product likely would be dismissed as a local or regional anomaly unrelated to water fluoridation. 

Technically, artificially fluoridating drinking water is a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under statutes of the SDWA, federal agencies are forbidden from endorsing, supporting, requiring or funding the practice of adding any chemicals to the water supply other than for purposes of water purification. However, the Public Health Service (PHS) applies semantics to circumvent Federal law in order to promote and fund the practice. 

PHS states that they only recommend levels of fluorides in the drinking water, and it is the sole decision of a state or community to fluoridate drinking water. 

Federal agencies are forbidden from directly funding or implementing water fluoridation but Federal Block Grants are given to States to use as they see fit. Through second and third parties (such as the American Dental Association, state health departments and state fluoridation coordinators), PHS encourages communities to apply for Federal Block Grant funds to implement fluoridation. 

The legality of using Federal Block Grant funds to fund water fluoridation, a practice prohibited by Federal law, has never been addressed in the courts. 

Vendors selling the pollution concentrate as a fluoridation agent use a broad disclaimer found on the Material Data Safety Sheet that states: “no responsibility can be assumed by vendor for any damage or injury resulting from abnormal use, from any failure to adhere to recommended practices, or from any hazards inherent to the product.” 

The next time you turn on the tap and water gushes out into a glass, reflect on the following disclaimer from the EPA’s 1997 Fluoride: Regulatory Fact Sheet: “In the United States, there are no Federal safety standards which are applicable to additives, including those for use in fluoridating drinking water.” (Glasser G. “Fluoride and the phosphate connection”The Earth Island Journal).

Revision of the Drinking Water Standard:

In 1985 the EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride.  The EPA wanted to raise the drinking water standard, or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL), which EPA publishes in the Federal Register from

2 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of fluoride, which was previously set to protect against dental fluorosis, to 4 mg/l in drinking water.

“EPA professionals were never asked to conduct a thorough, independent analysis of the fluoride literature.  Instead, their credentials were used to support the predetermined conclusion that 4 mg/l of fluoride in drinking water is safe.”

“EPA management based its standard on only one health effect:  crippling skeletal fluorosis (CSF).  They ignored data showing that healthy individuals were at risk of developing CSF if they happened to drink large quantities of water at the “safe” level of 4 mg/l.  EPA’s own data showed that some people drink as much as 5.5 liters a day.  These people would receive a daily dose of 22 mg, which exceeds the dose necessary to cause CSF” (In 1991 Robert Carlton was an EPA scientist and Vice President of Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, representing 1200 EPA professionals; Hirzy JW 2005 Jan.  Why the EPA’s Headquarters Professionals’ Union Opposes Fluoridation).

“Each liter of fluoridated water, at 1ppm concentration, contains a one milligram dose of fluoride, the so-called “recommended” daily amount.  Water, however, is only one source of ingested fluoride.  In 1991, the US Public Health Service estimated that the total daily intake for a 110 pound adult from all sources in an “optimally” fluoridated city, ranged as high as 6.6 milligrams.  In 1997, the EPA estimated that Americans were ingesting nearly five times more fluoride than in 1971, from food and drink alone” (Smith G.  Why Fluoride is an Environmental Issue, Earth Island Journal).

“Children are more at risk of over-exposure than adults.  A 1991 study by the Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry found that every sample of bottled fruit beverages tested contained fluoride.  One sample of Gerber’s grape juice contained 6.8 ppm, 70% higher than the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level of 4ppm for fluoride in drinking water and 240% higher than the EPA’s 2ppm standard set to protect against dental fluorosis.” ” (Smith G.  Why Fluoride is an Environmental Issue, Earth Island Journal).

The Effectiveness of Fluoride in Reducing Dental Cavities:

There has never been an adequately controlled, double-blind study of fluoride as a caries preventative. There have been many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows, at best, a saving of less than one tooth surface out of 128 surfaces, in fluoridated communities. This study also shows that two-thirds of the children in fluoridated communities display dental fluorosis on at least one tooth.

The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, gave similar findings. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, most visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston. Other recent studies show that when fluoridation is stopped, rates of dental caries do not increase.

A publication by Featherstone revised the theory of fluoride’s effect on dental caries reduction. He posited that the effect was topical, not systemic. That is, fluoride works by affecting the tooth surface, especially in the high concentrations present in tooth pastes, rather than by incorporation of fluoride into the tooth structure through swallowing it, as had previously been thought. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention then issued a report in 2001 which affirmed the findings of Featherstone that the main benefit from using fluoride comes from topical application. 

The Canadian Dental Association went even further, stating that fluoride’s effect on caries is topical, rather than systemic, and recommended that if a child brushes his/her teeth twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste that they should have no further exposure to fluoride even in a non fluoridated community.

John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation–until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. This paper provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand, and it explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation Hirzy JW.  2002 Dec.  Part II: Why the EPA’s headquarter professionals’ union opposes flouridation. New Life Journal).

 Professor Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto and a former spokesperson for the Canadian Dental Associations program pushing fluoridation in Canada, also has reversed his position and now opposes the practice .

Fluoridation and Rising Blood Lead Levels in Children:

Fluoridating water increases lead exposure, especially to children, because the fluoride added to drinking water often has up to 400 mcg of lead per liter and the corrosive action of fluoride extracts lead from pipes and solder joints, increasing lead exposure of the young.  Babies up to 3 months old absorb16 times as much lead per unit of body weight than adults. (Marcus WL. Facts on Fluoridation from EPA Whistleblowers, Earth Island Journal).Note:  William Marcus is a Senior Science Advisor with the EPA’s Office of Science and Technology.  In 1990, as a senior EPA toxicologist , Marcus questioned the safety of fluoride and was subsequently fired.  He sued the EPA and won reinstatement.

Another study, sampling 280,000 children in Massachusetts, reported a doubling of the risk of lead levels in children’s blood, rising above the danger level of 10 micrograms per deciliter when the hazardous wastes from the phosphate fertilizer industry are used for fluoridation, rather than sodium fluoride or no fluoride at all.

The correlation with blood lead levels is especially serious because lead poisoning is associated with higher rates of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, substance abuse, and crime. (The Request for Endorsement of California Assembly Bill 1729 (AB1729), 

Fluoride Product Quality Control Act Citizens for Safe Drinking Water CA Citizens for Health Freedom).

Fluoride Exposure and IQ Reduction:

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers ( Mullenix and others.1995.  Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicology. Teratol. 17:169-177). showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride – as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. 

Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers (Guan and others. 1998.  Influence of chronic flurosis on membrane lipids in rat brain.  Neurotoxicology Teratol. 20:537-542) gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan’s group found that several key chemicals in the brain – those that form the membrane of brain cells – were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride. 

Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others (Varner and others. 1998.  Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity.  Brain Research 784:284-298). reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed “optimal” by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. 

These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats -rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix’s finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is “seen” by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the ‘optimal’ level of 1 ppm. 

In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China (Zhao and others.  1996. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 29:190-192; Li and others  1995. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 28.), that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years. Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. 

Jennifer Luke (Luke JA.  1994. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Caries Research 28:204) has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed above. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston (Schlesinger and others.  1956. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. JADA 52:296-306.)

Aluminum compounds are commonly used as clarifying agents in tap water.

Aluminum by itself is not readily absorbed by the body.  However, in the presence of fluoride ions, the fluoride ions combine with the aluminum to form aluminum fluoride, which is absorbed by the body.  In the body, the aluminum eventually combines with oxygen to form aluminum oxide or alumina.  Alumina is the compound of aluminum that is found in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients.  In the brain, protein binds to alumina, and “That is the key to the plaques and tangles which are the hallmarks of this terrible disease.”

Two studies published in 1998 and 1999 illustrate why it is crucial, whether for or against fluoridation, that we refocus our attention on fluoride. One study reported a paradoxical effect that showed that exposure to low levels of aluminum fluoride delivered twice the amount of aluminum (as alumina) to the brain than concentrations 100 times the lower levels. At the same levels used to fluoridate our drinking water, sodium fluoride caused excessive kidney damage and lesions in the brain similar to those found in humans with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

The Request for Endorsement of California Assembly Bill 1729 (AB1729), 

Fluoride Product Quality Control Act Citizens for Safe Drinking Water CA Citizens for Health Freedom 

Fluoride-induced symptoms have been described in many reviews (Weinstein and McCune 1970; Weinstein and McCune, 1971; Thomas and Alther 1966; Brandt and Heck 1977; Treshow and Pack 1970; Guderian et al. 1969; Hindawi 1970; Thomas 1961). The basis for the following description is Weinstein and McCune (1971) plus our own experience in the field in several countries. 

Gaseous fluoride enters the leaf through the stomata (=pores) then it dissolves in the water permeating the cell walls. The natural flow of water in a leaf is towards the sites of greatest evaporation, which are the margins and tip. Carried by the water, the fluoride concentrates in the margins and tip, so it is these areas that generally are the first to show visible injury. Clearly, this concentration mechanism is one reason why fluoride can be so toxic to plants but there is an important corollary: Most of the leaf may have very little fluoride present and may function normally in terms of assimilation. 

Generally, leaves are most sensitive when they are young and still expanding. Once fully developed, they may be many times more resistant. Therefore symptoms are more often seen in young, expanding leaves. Where fumigation is periodic, symptoms may reflect this as only those leaves that are at the sensitive stage of development when the fumigation occurs will develop injury. The rate at which symptoms appear depends on the weather. There can be a considerable lag between the time of exposure to the fluoride and the development of the symptoms.

Exposure to a high concentration causes necrosis of part or even the whole of the leaf. The term necrosis comes form the Greek nekros meaning a dead body. The tissues die. 

The initial stages vary with species and both the speed of development of the symptoms and their appearance depend on the weather. In most monocotyledonous (narrow-leaved species including grasses and lilies) plants, the initial symptom is the development of chlorosis (= yellowing) at the tips and margins of elongating leaves. 

Although necrosis is the symptom most frequently referred to in texts, often being called tip-burn, other symptoms are at least as common or, in some areas, more common.

(Davison A, Weinstein L.  The effects of fluorides on plants.  The Air Pollution Group, Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.).

Fluoride can be reduced by anion exchange. Adsorption by calcium phosphate, magnesium hydroxide or activated carbon will also reduce the fluoride content of drinking water. Reverse osmosis will remove 93 – 95 % of the fluoride. There are several brands of reverse osmosis filters on the market today.  They come in a range of prices and can be installed easily on the sink-top or with some additional preparation, underneath the sink.

More Hidden Dangers of Water:

More than one third of all waterways are reported to be unsuitable for fishing or swimming because of pollution.  Contaminants include sewage, bacteria, fertilizer, toxic metals, oil, and grease.  Typical sources of pollution include runoff from farms, industrial waste, and city sewer discharge.

Newsweek: “Several million Americans are drinking water that is potentially hazardous due to chemical or bacterial contamination.” 

L.A. Times: “Communities with drinking water contaminated by chemicals are being hit with strange patterns of illness.” 

ABC Network News: “U.S. Industries…generate some 88,000,000 pounds of toxic wastes a year, 90 percent of which, the E.PA. estimates, are improperly disposed.”

The New York Times, June 2, 1995: “More than 1 in 5 Americans unknowingly drink tap water polluted with feces, radiation or other contaminants…Nearly 1,000 deaths each year and at least 400,000 cases of water borne illness may be attributed to contaminated water. . “ 

Houston Chronicle, June 2, 1995: “The parasite [cryptosporidium] that killed more than 100 people in Milwaukee two years ago has been found in drinking water systems that serve 45 million people…” 

USA TODAY, March 30, 1995: “Parasites in water are widespread…can be dangerous, even fatal, to people with weakened immune systems.” 

U.S. News & World Report, June 26, 1995: “Some individuals, federal officials said last week, should not drink water straight from the tap because a disease causing parasite can slip right through many municipal water treatment systems.”

The Washington Post, June 2, 1995: “Federal statutes do not require municipal water authorities to clean cryptosporidium from water reservoirs.” 

With over 70,000 chemicals now in use and with the introduction of a 1,000 more each year, drinking water contamination is increasing at an alarming rate.  According to a leading citizen lobby, U.S. drinking water has 2,100 toxic chemicals causing cancer, cell mutation, and nervous disorders.  Existing treatment plants were not designed to remove the new toxic chemicals, and the government is slow to regulate the high rate of contamination.  Responsible citizens are left to educate and protect themselves from one of the world’s greatest environmental threats – chemically contaminated water.