Can we have a follow up with each party answering the points made by the opposing view?

Although going by the evidence for and against the saying, "If in doubt, leave it out" is the best policy.

Dr Barry Cockroft, England's Chief Dental Officer who is pro fluoridation has lived in a fluoridated area for 40 years. How can we trust what he says, as fluoride causes brain damage!!

Jenette wrote:
Dr Barry Cockroft, England's Chief Dental Officer who is pro fluoridation has lived in a fluoridated area for 40 years. How can we trust what he says, as fluoride causes brain damage!!

Spot on.

"The Xiang study from 2003 looked at two villages in China. It found a drop in IQ of between five and ten IQ points where the fluoride level was 2.5 parts per million"

Over 40 years that IQ is now down 30 points.

Follow the money - check where he is getting his grants from.

Cockcroft said:-

"In the early 1970s about 40 per cent of adult people in Britain had no teeth at all"

That is a bare faced lie. 40% of over-18's did not have no teeth at all. With a lie like that can you believe anything else this man mutters?

Are you trying to suggest that drinking fluoridated water is making people lose IQ points?

The only thing that can affect IQ is age, so if that is what you're saying, that's impossible, as everyone has a set intelligence quotient when they are born and only age affects it.

The only message from Dr. Cockroft that should be heeded is this
" Get as much accurate information as you can, get your facts right."

Dr. Cockroft should follow his own advice because basically he's telling you to trust him because he trusted someone else but clearly he has no information to share with you.

Fluoridation 101
http://www.orgsites.
com/ny/nyscof

Fluoridation News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6
kqtu

Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas
http://www.fluoriden
ews.blogspot.com/

Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideA
ction.Net

Fluoride Journal http://www.FluorideR
esearch.Org

Hang on wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that drinking fluoridated water is making people lose IQ points? The only thing that can affect IQ is age, so if that is what you're saying, that's impossible, as everyone has a set intelligence quotient when they are born and only age affects it.

Since environmental factors play a role in determining IQ your comment is wrong.

Dr. Cockroft states: "If there were real worries about this I don't think that would be going on" (meaning fluoridation in the US). There ARE real worries about fluoridation in the US, and many of us are fighting it openly, but we receive no mainstream media coverage. The only reason it is "going on" in the US is because the government is forcing it upon us. So, please to not try to paint a "happy face" picture of US citizens being happily fluoridated. It has made us a nation of the most physically ill people on earth. Two-thirds are suffering from thyroid problems and weight problems. Two-thirds are being forcefully fluoridated. 40 Million are suffering from some degree of kidney disease. Fluoride damages the thyroid and the kidneys. Kidney disease, in turn, results in bone problems, malformations, fractures, osteo pain. But Dr. Cockroft probably received no training about fluoride, whatsoever, so he does not know what fluoride damages. If he DID receive training about fluoride, and if he DOES know the damages it causes, then he should be held personally accountable for promoting this toxic HAZMAT. This is presumably the only drug he would prescribe to everyone, forever, without ever meeting them or planning to check on them at some point to monitor for toxic effects and reactions. It's time for lawsuits - which is where we're now headed in the US. The fluoride era is over.
http://www.rense.com
/general82/newfuel.h
tm

The reason fluoride dosing lowers IQ is because it binds chemically with lead and aluminium. We all know the effects of lead poisoning on people (remember "oh, yes, leaded petrol is PERFECTLY SAFE") and Alzheimers Sufferers also have higher levels of aluminium in the brain than normal. Fluoride binds into both (from water pipes and turbidy cleansers)and causes us to retain 50% for adults and 80% for children in the soft tissues in the body. Check my blog @ euesireland.

Florida speaks again as we are the center of the storm when it comes to where to product comes from in the US. Phosphate by nature contains uranium in recoverable amounts an up until 1978 we had as many as 7 uranium recovery plants at phosphate facilities. These were started in secret to not alarm citizens or put our nuclear(bombs and reactors)at risk of public fears. The EPA in the early 70's due to huge damage and lawsuits downwind of the phosphate processing required smokestack scrubbers to remove toxic fluoride and a laundry list of radioactive decay products. The EPA allowed this toxic brew to be sold as a fluoridation product if it is added to drinking water only. The theory was fluoride is fluoride no matter the specific chemical. Calcium fluoride is natural fluoride and its toxicity is 34 times less then the H2SiF6 on a LD50 scale. To date no government agency has admitted ever doing a single chronic dose health or benefit study on this different chemical that contains 20 plus toxic contaminates mostly radioactive decay products after arsenic which tops the list. This was admitted under congressional questioning in 2000 by EPA Charles Fox. Also The FDA admitted to Congressman John Kelly NJ after lying for two years that no ingested fluoride product has ever been approved or reviewed ever by them. It is sort of grandfathered in for use as rat poison prior to 1938. The private testing agency NSF has refused to release a specification list of the 20 plus contaminates even to the state of Florida department. The AWWA has one on its site. After threat of lawsuit the National Kidney Foundation has withdrawn it support of fluoridation and also warns chronic kidney patients to monitor and reduce fluoride intake. They did no press release and this is hidden deep within its site for secrecy maybe. The AWWA American Water Works Association was just served with constructive notice to not destroy evidence for use in lawsuits against the NKF, Themselves and others to be named. Dr. Cockroft could not bee that totally ignorant or could he. I think not.I am not aware of a single scientific paper that has ever shown that dental fluorosis enamel damage is NOT caused by fluoride ingestion in children by fluoride toxicity as teeth are forming . The NRC 2006 blue Ribbon voted it was a medical effect12-0. The prior panel in 1983 voted 7-2 the same but somehow the report was altered to show safety. The EPA Headquarters Union called it fraud and sued finding fluoridation a violation of Safe Drinking Water Act. In 2000 EPA headquarters asked for immediate moratorium. In 2005 11 EPA unions asked for Congress to have immediate moratorium. In 2008 now 19 unions ask for moratorium. Maybe we should listen to the scientists instead of the government officials who seen to only know policy not reality. Our ship of state is steered by those who would ram the iceberg and the dentists seem to have the lifeboat concession. Our problem is of Titanic proportions with this leadership. waterloowatch.com and fluoridealert.org for fair and balanced science. Jim Schultz

H2SiF6 or HFSA is fantastic at leaching lead from brass which can have up to 30% lead or even 8% in new lead free brass. Copper pipe, solder are also leached and much more damaged when chlorine or the even greater threat chloramine can when added even eat holes in copper tube very quickly. I personally know of two large condo complexes that had copper pipes that looked like swiss cheese and had to do total re plumbing. Every water is very different and each plant process varies.
Lead in the home water is not tested for every year and then only a small sample unless the city has proven out of control lead leaching.
Washington DC added chloramine in 2000 and did not admit discovering off the chart lead levels until two years later. They were successful at a cover up of blaming to total problem on some lead supply lines. The corrosion expert they hired had discovered equally high levels everywhere tested so they fired him(EPA and Washington canceled his contract also) He paid the workers out of his own pocket to prove the real problem was chloramine leaching lead. When the city did a chlorine flush the levels fell everywhere for the 30 days and rose again when chloramine went back in. This lead leaching can be reduced by good water plant people who use corrosion control chemicals like polyphosphate or orthophosphate .But the point is HFSA and disinfectants both can leach huge amounts of lead and destroy your plumbing so why take the risk when other better choices exist. Its a stupid risk. Richard Maas tested over 150,000 houses in North Carolina for the EPA and found the same problems sometimes. See his 2007 study showing up to 900% more lead leaching when HFSA and Chloramine are used. Another successful Washington DC cover up as the main steam new does not cover the full truth often. (rarely). Your boy Crickroft will have to work hard to get up to even half truth. Total misinformation seems to be his style. I had gotten 5 radio talk shows(and a city building) all willing to hold a debate on fluoridation and not a single health department person would respond(we had been talking prior to the offer.)Most that I have talked to have never read any of the current science and only will speak the comic book version of fluoride lies. They are worse then useless. I do not think them stupid but just have sold their soules to the devil. They injure everyone and benefit no one. We need informed consent. Jim Schultz

Fluoridating drinking water is a toxic reactive measure. tooth decay is a result of diets high in sugar (white death).sugar is addictive and can be found in almost all processed foods and drinks.remove sugar from your diet and take your healthy teeth to your grave.

Simple question is:

Do you want a Toxic Poison added to your Tap Water that can cause irreversible damage to your bone structure and your Brain?

If No then DO something about it.

When the full truth about the effects of fluoridation is made public, dentists like Dr Cockroft will throw their hands up and bleat "How were we to know? We're just dentists."

Dr Barry Cockroft constantly refers to the benefits of fluoridated toothpaste and its benefits in reducing tooth decay. OK, fair point!! Doesnt he know the difference between brushing your teeth with it and 'Drinking it' .
Come on Doctor "Wake up and smell the coffee"

The ADA is a total misinformation site on the topic of fluoridation and most dentists only read their talking points on how to answer fluoridation questions. They mostly sound like one voice because they are smart enough to memorize the same lies. Not caring enough to find the truth and protect us.
The Indiana Dental association tested dental professional and discovered only 17% understood the current science of how fluoride works. Only 14% in Illinois. To be cited as expert on fluoridation boggles the mind when you still believe the fluoride myth. Should we listen to mindless fools to lead health policy? Ask for specific studies on specific questions and they bolt like scared chickens or else insult you for questioning their professionalism. The study was Yoder K.M. 2007.
The CDC cited fluoridation as a top ten public health policy in the same 2001 MWWR when they admitted its topical but forgot to mention no research could even show a measurable ingested benefit. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Where is a reporter to grill the fools or ask some real questions. Demand Proof ,not faked 60 year old studies. The 2000 York showed not one single high quality study showing benefit ever but many poorly designed studies claiming benefit.
One sorry Joker at Quack Watch Dr. Douglas sued a antifluoride person who called him a liar for his claim of 200 studies proving fluoridation works. In court he did not produce one study but again claimed 200 studies that CLAIMED benefit. He was tossed on his ear for the fool he is. The claim of huge benfit for every dollar spent is another lie as now in Canada Dr. Hardy Limeback and many others are now admitting dental fluorosis repair costs are exceeding even the exagerated claims of benefit. Proof not claims with no data. The York showed dental fluorosis damage incresased from 15% to 48% after fluoridation with 12.5% being ugly enough for expensive restoration. Game over- set ,match if you have a brain. This is all about the belief that the lowest social classes can not be trained to help themselves so we must do something that can not be avoided. It would be better if the policy actually worked. It never has. The tooth gap between rich and poor has never changed with fluoridation in the USA just the claims. DDS. Bill Osmunson has a video showing the facts and charts showing this claim a total lie with CDC data as the proof. Most of the USA poor inner cities all fluoridated for 50 plus years are having huge increases in cavities and huge increases in dental fluorosis proving fluoride toxicity. Burt 2007 Detroit proves it is all about nutrition,nutrition ,nutrition with poor inner city kids getting fluoridated water, soda, chips(snacks in a bag and all highly processed and loaded with sugars and starches and trans fats. This is the diet from hell with no fruits and vegatables. Maybe that is why they had almost 100% of the 5 year olds with cavities and often lots. Total failure is not the pattern for success. From the first study in Grand Rapids blacks were damaged with double the dental fluorosis tooth destruction. A 1990 Augusta Ga study showed at 1ppm over 80% damaged with 14% with moderate and severe damage which is life changing ugly. How much harm do you think we need to inflict? Do we have informed consent for this risk? Ask a dentist a question or a health department type and discover their ignorance. All talk and no proof. Jim Schultz

oh! how delightful England's Chief Dental Officer supports this imposition. Hmm
I WONDER HOW MUCH HE'S BEING PAID?!!

a little bit more than us peons methinks.

biased perhaps?

NO! Dr Barry Cockroft
wants only the best for us..... etc..

fter one year of consuming flouridated water you will be a different person entirely - it essentially gives you a mini labotomy not to mention all the other dreadful side effects. It's digusting and we all need to do something about it.
Look, CHINA, AUSTRIA, GERMANY, DENMARK etc... have all BANNED it! this country is a test-bed.

I'm off to smash my head repeatedly against a brick wall - perhaps I can convince them the amount of brain damage I will incur as a result will be sufficient.

hello, my name is Dr Barry Cockroft. I am paid generously to lie to you all.

Dr. Cockroft is a muddled thinker. This debate is not about fluoride, it is about water fluoridation. Nobody, to my knowledge, is opposing fluoride toothpaste - why would they? It is completely voluntary, it is controlled, and it is the most intelligent way to apply fluoride, if you really believe it is effective. Nobody drinks sunscreen when they go to the beach - why swallow fluoride when you can brush it on your teeth at 1000 times the concentration? It makes no sense whatever.
Dr. Cockroft says fluoridation benefits children who don't brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste (what he really means is children who do not brush their teeth at all). He actually says those who "can't afford fluoride toothpaste" when he really means that they choose to spend their money instead on the corrosive soft drinks which are the root of the problem, but he carefully avoids any reference to this rather embarrassing fact. You must always be nice to big business in this debate, or your funding will mysteriously dry up. It doesn't take a week's wages to buy a tube of toothpaste, Dr. Cockroft.
And how does water fluoridation help children who only drink soft drinks, and don't brush their teeth? Poor helpless victims! Don't these children have parents?
I have in my possession an e-mail from one of Australia's most fanatical fluoridation promoters, a former president of the Dental Association, who stated that children who drink soft drinks get no benefit from fluoridated water, because the sugar simply "overwhelms" any benefit from the fluoride. So try another one, Dr. Cockroft. We're not all idiots out here.
And please check your dictionary. My Oxford Dictionary defines 'fluorosis' as "poisoning by fluorine and its compounds". Nothing there about those pretty little white flecks!

Actually the ADA website claims that much of the really ugly dental fluorosis is caused by fluoride toothpaste and parents who do not supervise use closely.Canada now admits it is a unreasonable risk under 7 because many kids swallow way too much. The youngest in the 2,3,4 often swallow half and more with a huge variation as kids are very different. Add this to the fact that a small smear or pea sized dab contains the total limit a dentist,doctor can prescribe up to 3. Zero for up to 6 months, to 3 yrs .25mg and 3-6 .5mg and max or 1mg at 9 years in the 1995 limits established by the ACP and ADA and others. So one cup 8oz of water or one pea size dab contains the limit for the day if a kid only brushes one and swallows. Many load the brush and brush very often to eat the stuff. Remember every glass or water or soda or most juices and dose of food contain an equal dose. It is a surprise that that not all children are damaged but high calcium,magnesium and vit c can protect as admitted in 1993 by the US public health--The high risk groups to be damaged were seniors,diabetics,he

art patients ,infants and those low on the calcium, magnesium and vitamin c or protein. The promised follow up had not been done. Oops. Charles Fox in 2000 congressional testimony did promise but still no warning for public safety or health professionals so they can warn us. It is a rare health professional willing to warn of the risk. You are on you own to protect yourself from your government desire to use untested toxic waste to improve your health with absolutely no risk. Do I smell a dirty little lie?(liar). Nutrition is the answer for most health issues. Drugs are the answer for most doctors. Health services will only provide drugs not healthy foods. Sugar and advertising produces kids who often only get nutrition lacking junk food. Parents often follow the same eating pattern. How do we protect our selves from ourselves much less our government who almost never get anything right. Remember the lobby money is behind foods that make industry rich not people health. All regulations and laws are written by those that will benefit and money flows to politicians to support as there own. Often people in the health agencies do industry bidding and are rewarded very richly with different consulting fees and such and then a job at many times former salary if they can produce advantage for that industry. That is standard procedure at the FDA for top management. We reap what we sow. Mary Sparrowdancer in Florida give me a call or email. 386 235 5069 sbankse@bellsouth.ne

t or anyone else who might have a question or issue within reason. I will point you toward the information but you could just google it also. Jim Schultz

Dr Connet presents us with sound arguments based upon a scientific approach using the latest research and common sense. Dr. Cockcroft fails on all the above and indeed seems, like most other pro-fluoride apologists, to he either living in the past or having failed (some might say, conveniently ) to keep abreast of any changes or research since WW2. This is sad, not to say pathetic and very damaging to his credibility. The Isle of Man has just, very wisely said a resounding NO to fluoride and the Department of Health has now withdrawn the proposal pausing only to tweak the voting figures to reduce their shame. The people of Southampton like the vast majority of people in the UK have repeatly said they dont want this poison or the lies and quackery that goes hand in hand with it. Dr Cockcroft and his fellow travellers should now quietly pack up their discredited information and government cheques, and retire from the contest without wasting any more of our time or the taxpayers money. They have wasted far too much of both already.

Dr Connet presents us with sound arguments based upon a scientific approach using the latest research and common sense. Dr. Cockcroft fails on all the above and indeed seems, like most other pro-fluoride apologists, to he either living in the past or having failed (some might say, conveniently ) to keep abreast of any changes or research since WW2. This is sad, not to say pathetic and very damaging to his credibility. The Isle of Man has just, very wisely said a resounding NO to fluoride and the Department of Health has now withdrawn the proposal pausing only to tweak the voting figures to reduce their shame. The people of Southampton like the vast majority of people in the UK have repeatly said they dont want this poison or the lies and quackery that goes hand in hand with it. Dr Cockcroft and his fellow travellers should now quietly pack up their discredited information and government cheques, and retire from the contest without wasting any more of our time or the taxpayers money. They have wasted far too much of both already.

Oh dear.

We have one expert who gives us evidence from sound scientific studies, statistics, information, and research, alongside his own personal opinions.

Then we have another who says "I've drunk fluoridated water for 40 years" and follows it up with what? No studies, no data, no information, only outdated information and his personal opinions. Dental fluorosis is just white flecks and actually makes your teeth whiter? There's never been a scientific paper to suggest any dangers? 40% of adults in the 1970s had no teeth?!?! What?!

Lies, lies, lies.

As for asking your dentist for advice - they're dentists, not scientists, and most of them are fed the same lies the public are from ignorant people with fat paycheques such as 'Dr' Cockroft (I loathe to use that title on a man who clearly doesn't understand basic fundamentals of research).


So after all that, who do you trust? Who do you listen to? The one who hasn't had the fluoride water and gives sound information, studies, facts, and research? Or the one who's had 40 years of the stuff and can't come up with a single piece of factual information or a single study to back his views, instead patronising and making himself look an utter fool?

I know who'd I'd rather trust...

The trend in the USA is to avoid citizen votes at all costs and slip it by us in the dead of night with no promotion and a council vote. I do not know what they promise but many smart commissioners become very stupid with no questions to pass fluoridation. Even the most basic verification is ignored. Often it is dentist buddies behind the scenes giving complete assurances. Science is ignored showing the poor are damaged worse. Social engineering at its worst. Everybody but industry and dentists injured.The EPA headquarters leader in the 80's said the biggest fraud ever. Robert Carton PHD. It has gotten bigger. How do you even cover up something this stupid ? Let the press do it job please. JimSchultz

The following post is available as a highly condensed landscape A4 duplex capable single sheet document for Word specifically formatted to be used as a flyer for home delivery. If you want it contact griffithspeter0@goog

lemail.com

sorry about the small print!

GIVE YOUR KIDS THE GIFT OF BONE CANCER, BRAIN DAMAGE AND STERILITY

The proposals to fluoridate public water with toxic compounds of hexaflourasilic acid are a direct breech of European regulations forbidding the mass medication of human populations. It is also an offence under section 23 of the offences against the person Act of 1861. The Water Supply (Fluoridation Indemnities) (England) Regulations 2005 (Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 920) were a specific attempt by the government to provide the water supply industry with "blanket" immunity against civil and criminal liability arising out of these criminal acts. Poisoning by Fluoride, a known and deadly toxin, has no place in the public health system and its introduction has more to do with eugenics and population control than dental care. Alan Johnson is more than aware of this. Unfortunately unelected and unaccountable "health quangos" will be seeking to call the shots on this issue and most of them will be riven with the corrupt members of Common Purpose. An organisation more sinister than the Real IRA.

Fluoridation of public water supplies should not be allowed! And here’s why: WHY EPA’S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION*

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride’s only effects were beneficial — reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.‡

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was all right for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief‡‡ in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.1

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers2 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-workers3 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 others4 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 China5,6 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 Luke7 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 below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston.8

From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue.9 The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made the finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.11a,b,c,d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey,12 Washington and Iowa13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997.14 Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.15a,b,c,

d,e Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.16 The latest publication17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. 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, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important.18 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. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English-speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180-degree turn on fluoridation.

Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health.19,20,21 However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste.22 Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media,23 that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America’s children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA’s risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry
.1 Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61. On-line at URL http//:www.rvi.net/~

fluoride/naep.htm. 2 Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995). 3 Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).4 Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998). 5 Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996). 6 Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7 Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994). 8 Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956). 9 Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW. 10 Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11a Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984). 11b Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984). 11c Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11d An increase in the number of Down’s syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985). 12 A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992). 13 Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991). 14 New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle, B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997). 15a Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990). 15b Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992). 15c The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992). 15d Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly . Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995). 15e Water fluoridation and hip fracture . Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991). 16 Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990). 17 Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18 Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 29-44 (1997). 19 A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71 (1999). 20 Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999). 21 Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999). 22 Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991). 23 Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street Journal Dec. 21, 1998. 24 Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983. OTHER CITATIONS a Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42 109-121 (1994). bAmeliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988). cMilk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986). dMaternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R., Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54 263-269 (1988). eEffects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J., Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985). fFluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987). gFluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 3 701-705 (1979). hAn unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J., Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28 (1981). iThe effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan, Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988). jModulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988). kThe crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase. Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988 (1984). lIntracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986). mFluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd (London) (1937). nToxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825 152-166 (1997). oAllergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273 (1993). *For Correspondence: Bill Hirzy, NTEU Headquarters, Box 76082 Washington, DC 20013. TO RECEIVE THIS DOCUMENT AS AN EMAIL TXT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO 07510258880
‡For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", by investigative reporters Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson ,

on-line at http://www.ia4u.net/

~sherrell/bomb.htm.
‡‡http://www.rvi.net

/~fluoride/amicus.ht

m
*PLEASE PHOTOCOPY THIS DOCUMENT FOR YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS-GET THE TRUTH OUT*

Should they go ahead they will be BREAKING THE LAW.

Here's why.....

The use of the specified chemicals for water fluoridation is illegal
under the Poisons Act

Fluorosilicates are Part 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act 1972, and have no medicinal use, as the Medicines Control Agency has repeatedly stated. Their addition to the public water supply therefore constitutes a criminal action, existing legislation on fluoridation notwithstanding. Reference to a poison in the Poisons Act includes substances containing that poison. It is
consequently in violation of ss 23 and 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which forbids the administration of any poisonous or noxious substance.




The use of unregistered substances for medicinal purposes is illegal
under the Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive 2001/83/EEC

The intent to medicate renders any substance presented as having any beneficial effect on a medical condition a medicinal substance under Article 1 of this Directive, irrespective of its efficacy. All medicinal substances must be registered as such, and subjected to full clinical testing for safety. Fluorosilicates have not been so registered nor tested for safety. Manufacturing these chemicals under BS EN 12174/5 does not authorise their use as medicinal substances.




The use of fluoridation chemicals to medicate the public
indiscriminately violates the code of medical ethics set out in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine

This Convention establishes a valid Code of Medical Ethics and is widely accepted throughout Europe - the failure of the British Government to endorse it does not render its provisions invalid, as all such national codes should comply with the principles set out therein. States may not medicate any individual except under exceptional conditions of recognised
public health emergencies. All medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision, and in accordance with the patient's needs and fully informed wishes.


Water fluoridation as practised in Britain is illegal medical research

In a Briefing Paper issued by the Medical Research Council, (June 2003) the Government "asked the Medical Research Council to explore how any further research could most productively be focused in order to strengthen the knowledge base concerning water fluoridation and its effects on health." This statement establishes that fluoridation is a medication, and that its safety has not been adequately established and needs to be subject to 'further research. The proposal to expose the whole population of the country to these unregistered medical substances is therefore a proposal to carry out medical research on an expanded experimental population, but has not been submitted to scrutiny by an independent Medical Ethics Committee. It therefore violates the guidelines set out in the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and constitutes medical malpractice by the State.





Water fluoridation violates the European Convention on Human Rights

Paragraphs 56, 57 and 59 of the Home Office Guidance Notes on the application of the Human Rights Act establish that fluoridation violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act, and also Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Since fluoridation is the illegal administration of a registered poison with no medicinal authorisation, it constitutes a State sanctioned
criminal act against the public, and is incompatible with the Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Where children are involved - indeed, specifically targeted - such an act also raise issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.





Fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights

Under Article 35 of the Charter, the right to health care includes the right to refuse health care, for whatever reason. It establishes the individual's right to receive particular drugs or treatments - or to prevent them from having such treatment administered against their wishes.



The offer of indemnity in respect to water fluoridation under the Water Bill is illegal.

The offer in the Water Bill to extend indemnity against liability to water suppliers constitutes an offer of contract between the Government and water providers. The addition of registered poisons to the public water supply is a criminal act that violates the provisions of the Poisons Act, notwithstanding enabling legislation relating to these chemicals. Contracts that relate to illegal actions are themselves illegal. Indemnifying defendants in criminal or civil claims from the public taxation purse is a travesty of the responsibility of Parliament to defend the rights of the people.



Water fluoridation is in breach of consumer legislation, and implies
product liability.

Water is a product. The Water Quality Regulations governing the maximum amount of a substance that may be present in drinking water are not a licence to add that substance to the product up to that maximum. Any consumable product that is subjected to illegal contamination by unregistered medicinal substances, or by registered poisons, cannot be considered to be wholesome. Consumer product liability does not require proof of medical damage or actual bodily harm.



Voting on local fluoridation would violate Article 17 of the Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition on the abuse of rights).

Permitting a public vote to establish a 'majority preference' violates the principle of the absolute right of any individual to refuse that medication. It constitutes an attempt to induce the public to endorse an act that violates the rights of a (presumed) minority, and is illegal under Article 17 of the Convention on Human Rights.

Fear not people, We will see them in court.

Dr Barry Cockcroft states "A huge amount of scaremongering goes on about fluoridation, but there's never been a scientific paper which has proven an adverse effect.” That is misleading. He must know that it is almost impossible for a single paper to prove (in the sense of establishing beyond all reasonable doubt) anything at all in epidemiology. Think how long it took to establish the link between smoking and lung cancer. In any case, why should recipients of forced medication be called upon to prove that it is harming them? Any substantial risk should be enough to halt the practice. There are many such risks, some of which are outlined in the statement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Unions posted above.

For example, the carefully researched paper by Bassin and colleagues (Cancer Causes Control. 2006 May;17(4):421-8) may not prove once and for all that drinking fluoridated water during childhood is associated with a several-fold increase in bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in young men, but that is what their data show. So the people of Southampton are now supposed to drink the stuff indefinitely, and risk many lives, while the matter is further investigated: great idea.

AMERICAN LAWYERS PREPARE FOR ACTION AGAINST THE WORLD’S BIGGEST WATER AUTHORITY AND OFFICIALS IMPLEMENTING FLUORIDATION.

At last it appears a fatal blow has been dealt to the shameful policy of fluoridation. On June 9th the largest association of water professionals in the world, The American Water Works Association, was told, “not to destroy, remove, or tamper with documents or video recordings in its possession that may be used in legal actions on behalf of persons injured by drinking fluoridated water.” Attorney Robert Reeves listed AWWA’s HQ, its regional offices, and national and regional officers personally as “potentially responsible parties” that may be the subject of legal actions by kidney patients and others harmed by ingesting fluorides.

This extraordinary development follows the sensational news on June 3rd that the American National Kidney Association admitted chronic kidney disease patients are at risk from fluoridated water. Kathleen Thiessen PhD said, “The National Research Council report indicated that kidney patients, diabetics, infants, and other groups are susceptible population groups.” She was also deeply concerned by the risk of thyroid damage. She felt that black and minority groups were disproportionately harmed by fluoride.

Dr Thiessen’s shock announcement corroborates the findings of Nobel Laureates and international medical and scientific experts, and this explains why 94% of the world has rejected fluoridation. Their highest quality peer-reviewed evidence links fluoride to many fatal and chronic diseases, like cancer and Alzheimer’s. Here, the most influential York Review refused to say fluoridation was safe, cost effective or that it would equalize dental health between rich and poor, as claimed by the fluoride propaganda machine. York also said that if there were any dental benefits they would have to be weighed against the harm. We now know the huge range and extent of the harm to which they were referring.

This ground breaking news confirms that the medical evidence is now so powerful that the perpetrators of fluoridation may well have to stand trial. This should force a refusal to implement fluoridation by British water companies, health authorities and individuals, as they too could face the risk of prosecution.

Local people will not tolerate being bullied by unelected health authorities, or compliant water companies, who are relying on corrupt evidence to justify a corrupt and dangerous policy. But fluoridation is not only dangerous to human health and the environment, it is also a violation of medical ethics and human rights. It is wrong on all counts and must be stopped.

The local Primary Care Trust and board members of South Central SHA should immediately reverse their decision on fluoridation. The suppression of the truth, the total denial of health risks and their refusal to properly inform the public of the potential dangers, indicates that they are morally unfit to hold their positions. They should be sacked or risk the legal consequences now facing their American counterparts. This also applies to Southern Water and other water companies. Everyone responsible for fluoridation has been informed of the dangers, but rather than protect the public they have deliberately chosen to put them at risk, probably in order to save their jobs. Shame on them.

To confirm the AWWA news go to www.fluoridealert.or
g. Beware – do not type in fluoridealert.com or .co as this is a propaganda site whose address has been deliberately set up to mislead the public.

Many Thanks to Stuart Jebbitt of Eastleigh for his highly illuminating post full of crucial info.

Its a Beautiful Beautiful thing when those who see themselves as above the Law are brought to Justice and your comments represent the yellow brick road that the SESHA and the Water Companies will be walking very soon.

Once again
Many Thanks

Many Thanks to Stuart Jebbitt of Eastleigh for his highly illuminating post full of crucial info.

Its a Beautiful Beautiful thing when those who see themselves as above the Law are brought to Justice and your comments represent the yellow brick road that the SCSHA and the Water Companies will be walking very soon.

Once again
Many Thanks

"those who suffer most are those who can't afford fluoride toothpaste"
Strangely though, they all seem able to afford Fags, Booze, Junk Food, and Satellite TV!!!!

The following post is available as a highly condensed landscape A4 duplex capable single sheet document for Word specifically formatted to be used as a flyer for home delivery. If you want it contact griffithspeter0@goog
lemail.com

sorry about the small print!

GIVE YOUR KIDS THE GIFT OF BONE CANCER, BRAIN DAMAGE AND STERILITY

The proposals to fluoridate public water with toxic compounds of hexafloruasilic acid are a direct breech of European regulations forbidding the mass medication of human populations. It is also an offence under section 23 of the offences against the person Act of 1861. The Water Supply (Fluoridation Indemnities) (England) Regulations 2005 (Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 920) were a specific attempt by the government to provide the water supply industry with "blanket" immunity against civil and criminal liability arising out of these criminal acts. Poisoning by Fluoride, a known and deadly toxin, has no place in the public health system and its introduction has more to do with eugenics and population control than dental care. Alan Johnson is more than aware of this. Unfortunately unelected and unaccountable "health quangos" will be seeking to call the shots on this issue and most of them will be riven with the corrupt members of Common Purpose. An organisation more sinister than the Real IRA.

Fluoridation of public water supplies should not be allowed! And here’s why:
WHY EPA’S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION*

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride’s only effects were beneficial — reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.‡

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was all right for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief‡‡ in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.1

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers2 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-workers3 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 others4 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 China5,6 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 Luke7 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 below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston.8

From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue.9 The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made the finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.11a,b,c,d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey,12 Washington and Iowa13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997.14 Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.15a,b,c,

d,e Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.16 The latest publication17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. 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, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important.18 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. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English-speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180-degree turn on fluoridation.

Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health.19,20,21 However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste.22 Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media,23 that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America’s children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA’s risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry
.1 Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61. On-line at URL http//:www.rvi.net/~

fluoride/naep.htm. 2 Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995). 3 Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).4 Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998). 5 Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996). 6 Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7 Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994). 8 Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956). 9 Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW. 10 Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11a Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984). 11b Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984). 11c Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11d An increase in the number of Down’s syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985). 12 A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992). 13 Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991). 14 New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle, B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997). 15a Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990). 15b Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992). 15c The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992). 15d Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly . Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995). 15e Water fluoridation and hip fracture . Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991). 16 Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990). 17 Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18 Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 29-44 (1997). 19 A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71 (1999). 20 Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999). 21 Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999). 22 Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991). 23 Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street Journal Dec. 21, 1998. 24 Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983. OTHER CITATIONS a Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42 109-121 (1994). bAmeliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988). cMilk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986). dMaternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R., Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54 263-269 (1988). eEffects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J., Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985). fFluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987). gFluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 3 701-705 (1979). hAn unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J., Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28 (1981). iThe effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan, Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988). jModulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988). kThe crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase. Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988 (1984). lIntracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986). mFluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd (London) (1937). nToxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825 152-166 (1997). oAllergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273 (1993). *For Correspondence: Bill Hirzy, NTEU Headquarters, Box 76082 Washington, DC 20013. TO RECEIVE THIS DOCUMENT AS AN EMAIL TXT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO 07510258880
‡For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", by investigative reporters Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson ,

on-line at http://www.ia4u.net/

~sherrell/bomb.htm.
‡‡http://www.rvi.net

/~fluoride/amicus.ht

m
*PLEASE PHOTOCOPY THIS DOCUMENT FOR YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS-GET THE TRUTH OUT*

Official statements from South Central SHA, the PCT and doctors Mortimore and Cockroft that dental fluorosis is harmless and fluoridation is completely safe must be immediately and publicly withdrawn.

In 1999, Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:

"In view of the absence of any relevant scientific studies cited in the US Review of Fluoride, 1991, referred to in the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 8 February (WA 1-2), whether they can quote any other scientific sources in support of their belief that dental fluorosis is only a cosmetic side-effect of fluoride and not an indication of early toxicity."

Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. . " - (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.).
It is estimated that, as in Ireland, 48% - 54% of children living in fluoridated areas develop dental fluorosis, which dentists refuse to treat on the NHS.