I disagree with fluoridation and agree with MP Chris Huhne that the real problem in our area is the lack of acess to NHS dentists.

My partner suffers from fluoridosis... since we moved away from a fluoridated area it has not gotten worse, it will start deteriorating again if Southampton's water has added fluoride... It's not a 'cure all' for teeth!!!

Yet another pooryl thought out proposal. Making us all take in more flouride is not the solution. Find out what the problem is and work on a strategy for that - Poor diet, bad dental hygiene, a lack of understanding of good dental care, the cost of dental care and lack of access to dentists is more likely the problem. Why make those of us who care for our (and our childrens) teeth have to take in even more chemicals.

I agree with you, Talya, it is ridiculous to treat the healthcare issue (of a minority) this way. It is moving the problem from one place to another
Adding chemicals can only shake a bit more the (already fragile) balance of health and environment.

For a list of NHS dentists accepting new clients see http://www.southampt
onhealth.nhs.uk/ours
ervices/nhsdentist/h
ampshiredentalhelpli
ne

Fluoride may damage bones of kidney patients

The U.S. National Kidney Foundation (NKF) has withdrawn its support of water fluoridation,

The NKF’s April 15, 2008 statement says: “Individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.”

We have had 1 or 2 stories a day on this for the last 2 weeks

The only people who need it are lazy folk who feed their kids coke and ready meals, so it is pointless really. Start leaving them to get on with it rather than everyone else having to have this stuff to their water

Hopefully the 'health chiefs' will get the message soon - why do they insist on perusing this rubbish, ill thought out idea. It’s a scandalous waste of taxpayers hard earned dosh!

Many people born before the Second World War spent their childhood without sweets or much suger due to food rationing but some must have had bad teeth or dental fillings.
So perhaps we should not put so much blame on parents.
However I do not want to have flouride put into the water.

Lorraine Barter wrote:
Many people born before the Second World War spent their childhood without sweets or much suger due to food rationing but some must have had bad teeth or dental fillings.
So perhaps we should not put so much blame on parents.
However I do not want to have flouride put into the water.

But did they have access to cheap toothpaste and brushes, probably not

Water fluoridation has been implemented in certain areas, such as the west midlands for over 40 years. How can anyone turn around and say that it is unsafe for one area and not for another???
The report on fluoridated areas is a decrease in caries rates in all ages and no systemic effects. It is only harmful in huge amounts (same as most substances). People need to look at benefiting the majority.

I grew up in Coventry, a fluoridated area, and I want my children to receive the same benefits to their teeth as I did. I don't see why they should be deprived of something with long term benefits just because of the opinions of a few misinformed people - some of whom do not even live in the area to be fluoridated.

flouride is a poisonous waste which the chemical companies have to pay to have taken off their hands.By conning the general public,taxpayers would now be charged for the privelege of having it dumped in their reservoirs,f.o.c. to the companies.

Val Barton wrote:
I grew up in Coventry, a fluoridated area, and I want my children to receive the same benefits to their teeth as I did. I don't see why they should be deprived of something with long term benefits just because of the opinions of a few misinformed people - some of whom do not even live in the area to be fluoridated.

mmm, by the same token I grew up in an area that wasn't flouridated and want my children to receive the same benefits to their teeth as I did. (toothpaste, toothbrush and sensible diet)

I don't want to pay for water that has had something I don't want added to it, added to it. It's all about freedom of choice and this would leave us with none.

This is all about mass medication of lazy, pikey scum because it's cheaper and easier than actually sorting out the NHS. If you can't see that then you are a moron and should go 'back to Conventry'.

I have a 3 year old daughter and, as I have seen fluoridosis, I use a natural fluoride free toothpaste. We visited the dentist yesterday and was told that her teeth are perfect and in excellant condition. They should spend the money on educating parents and NHS dentists. If this goes ahead I am stopping my direct debit to Southern Water as it will no longer be safe to drink.

Alex Pointon wrote:
Water fluoridation has been implemented in certain areas, such as the west midlands for over 40 years. How can anyone turn around and say that it is unsafe for one area and not for another??? The report on fluoridated areas is a decrease in caries rates in all ages and no systemic effects. It is only harmful in huge amounts (same as most substances). People need to look at benefiting the majority.

No one looks for ill affects in fluoridated areas with any diligence.
A recent headline in the Birmingham Mail "The dire state of childhood obesity in Birmingham was laid bare today as the city's new "fat tsar" warned of a legacy of deadly illnesses awaiting this generation of youngsters. Dr Patrick Lowe, Birmingham's recently appointed lead officer on children's nutrition and health, said the problem among local children as young as four was now "horrendous".
Is the reported obesity caused by the fluoride affecting the thyroid - as it is known to?
It has also been reported that there are more still births than normal as well as orthopaedic problems. Can you imagine the British Dental Association or the British Fluoride Society wanting that to be broadcast. The York review said that neither the effectiveness nor the safety of fluoridation is proven and no further worthy studies have taken place since.
And if fluoridation was effective why does Birmingham have more dentists per person and a bigger budget than a comparable city?
I went to the PCT meeting and the SCSHA meeting when the fluoridation was first raised.. The PCT board members individually spoke and voted on the proposal, at least two were against the idea. I have been told those who did speak against are no longer on the board perhaps that is why the SCHSA did not vote individually but one member just said, Are we are all agreed and they obligingly acquiesced.
Would you want your children or grandchildren to develop fluorosis or worse?

The more one reads the more we are confused. Have it in mind the Government has the best psychologist who know exactly how we will react to instigated chemical and biological insertion in our water, food and pills. When do we stop the the amount of antibiotics, chemicals in our fields, anti-rotting additives in all our food - what a cocktail of poison we are ingesting!! but then we have to reason - how do we feed millions of people - what is the answer?

Clair

Our snapshot is designed to gauge feelings ahead of a three-month public consultation due to be launched by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) in August
Does it effect my skin pigmentation?

Surely a cheaper option would be to give all the chavs on benefits free toothbrushes and toothpaste? Then all the decent people who look after there kids properly wouldn't have to be poisoned?

Try brushing twice a day, or even once, freaks.

Dear all,

Sodium Flouride (which is what's being proposed to be added) is INDUSTRIAL WASTE, it has been proven in the US to gradually damage the nervous system bringing on Alzheimers disease as well as creeping liver, kidney and skeletal damage.

Using sodium flouride to reduce the instance of tooth decay is fundamentally flawed and places the whole body at risk for the (supposed) sake of the teeth. Flouride toothpaste is the only way to apply flouride to the teeth with little adverse danger. Why do you think there are health warnings on toothpaste tubes relating to the ingestion of significant quantities of toothpaste over and above a 'pea sized' amount? BECAUSE IT IS POISONOUS!!!

Flouridation of the water is in effect mass medication, and is not intended to improve the dental health of the population but to make them easier to control (see notes on water flouridation in 2nd World War concentration camps to make the inmates more 'suggestable')

Flouride in toothpaste is perfectly acceptable as you spit it out afterwards. Drinking flouride is another matter entirely.

The whole issue of sodium flouride even BEING of benefit should be questioned, as the original studies used calcium flouride, NOT sodium flouride. When the original scientific team discovered that SODIUM flouride was going to be added to drinking water for dental benefits they were aghast - as they knew the potential harm this OTHER chemical would do the human body. Their tests used CALCIUM not SODIUM flouride.

We must resist this idea with all possible means, the long term effects will be disasterous.

Steve

It isn't even sodium fluoride they put in, Steve, it's this muck. (taken from a briefing paper by the Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Liam Donaldson.) The UK's Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 allows hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) to be used to increase the fluoride content of water. The published Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies (Department of the Environment, 1987) gives specifications for these substances and states that 'the product must not contain any mineral or organic substances capable of impairing the health of those drinking water correctly treated with the product'. For H2SiF6, limits are given for a number of possible impurities, including for iron, heavy metals, sulphate, phosphate, and chloride. The specification for Na2SiF6 powder requires a minimum of 98% m/m of the pure chemical, and gives maximum limits for impurities, including heavy metals (as lead) and iron. No other substances are allowed to be used in the fluoridation process, other than an anti-caking agent (the identity of which must be disclosed) in the case of Na2SiF6. Synthetic detergents are not permitted.

if one does the reseach he/she can only come to the conclusion that fluoride in water is not only BAD but also a crime..........

Many countries have BANNED the use of fluoride in water over the last 30 years or so.

ALL of the contries that have banned it have seen a continued fall in tooth decay AFTER the bans came into place.

This proves that the fall in tooth decay is down to better diets and healthcare.

Similarly, countries that have NEVER had fluoride have also seen a fall in tooth decay.

This shows that fluoride is pointless.

In addition, fluoride has been show to cause alzheimer's in lab rats and is a carcingen.

Also, fluoride in water has been known to kill people on dialysis.

Fluoride has mind altering qualities and studies have shown that it lowers IQ and makes people more placid.

People have died from fluoride poisoning from drinking water etc...etc

I could go on, the reasons for NOT putting fuoride in water are extensive and well researched.

The evidence FOR putting fluoride in water is very vague and anecdotal and based on some flawed studies..

The public should be free to CHOOSE what they consume. They money would be better spent on improving healthcare.

I disagree with FLouride as well why push somthing on people that they dont want? O YEA PROLLY CAUSE IF YOU PUSH IT ON PEOPLE YOU WILL MAKE MONEY!!! Greed is a terrible and dangerous thing. I don't live in the UK but you all that do keep up the good fight and keep this garbage out of your water

The bottom line is that no one has any business medicating the public through the water. Since fluoride is put into the water to treat disease, it is a drug. Why don't you put something good in like vitamins??? I hope not, since that is our responsibility just like taking care of our teeth. Good diet and flossing and proper minerals are what helps our children's teeth. I got cavaties when I was young and guess what? I had fluoride.

Fluoridation of a public water supply is forcing an unapproved substance on uninformed individuals without consent for a purpose (preventing dental caries) for which it is not effective, where the dosage is not controlled and the effects are not monitored. Furthermore it is toxic to various body systems and distorts the development of the central nervous system. It is simply ineffective, dangerous and unethical.

One has the right and responsibility to both question and thoroughly review the medication of drinking water with fluoride - especially water consumed by infants and the elderly. The fluoride action network is an excellent internet source for fulfilling this responsibility.

It would be a terrible tragedy if Southampton fluoridates its water. The two leading proponents of fluoridation in the USA,the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control, have conceded that infants should not be given formula made with fluoridated water. Fluoridation, used as directed, harms infants. How on Earth can it be allowed in the water supply?

Bill, Steve, Cliff and others-You are a danger to the attempt to force government policy upon uninformed citizens. Almost all stated facts given by the health agencies all total lies or half truths. What motivates them? This policy harms greatest those at greatest risk. Ingested fluorides absolutly cause more damage to teeth then any possible benefit. All the current science shows no measurable ingested benefit. Even the CDC admitted primary benefit is topical but did not admit this fact when they said fluoridation one the the 10 best public health policys. Benefits no one and injures everyone. Must be number One. In the US dentists do not know fluoride science just 60 year old myth. Indiana tested dental professionals and only 17% understood the new science of how fluoride works(topical on exposed teeth). Four years later Illinois professional scored 14%. These ignorant professionals with arrogance force toxic waste that injures upon trusting citizens. Ask about specific current science and all they state is talking point on how to defeat antifluoride loonies from their journal. One in Florida Michael Easley DDS stated to citizens" Nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country." I asked for his dismissal and was told his statement was taken out of context. Arrogant losers like this injure citizens who have no idea of the lies they are being told. There is no informed consent without knowledge of both sides of the issue. To have a vote of citizens after huge government resourses have been spent to mis inform is not totally valid either. No one has the right to mass medicate everyone. This is a cumulative toxin and most damage is after long exposures and this damage is not being looked for. India has much research showing adverse health effects and also causing cavities at .6ppm when low on calcium. 9 of 10 girls in the US are low on calcium says the health department. The risks are know but officially ignored to save face. We are acceptable collateral damage to maintain policy. 19 of the EPA unions now demand immediate moratorium on the fluoridation fraud. That is almost all professionals at the EPA. Follow the science not the empty suits. fluoridealert.org waterloowatch.com Jim Schultz

Fluoridation of water supply is a cheap and effective way to get rid of fluoride. A documented poison, it is expensive to discard of because of its toxicity. The governments solution- feed it to humans!
When I was 12 or so the dentist forced a foaming fluoride solution upon my teeth. I immediately became nauseous and ill. Upon my next visit, I asked why I did not have to receive this solution- I was told it had been tested and found to be harmful to humans! My tiff- Why is this testing not being done beforehand? We are told these chemicals are poison in biology class. We were showed expiraments where rats become senile upon ingestion of a parallel level of fluoride that I am exposed to when I drink, shower, or brush my teeth.
On a second related note- please buy and use natural toothpaste, or brush your teeth with baking soda. It is less expensive and more effective. It does not taste bad, and it does not make you sick. You can eat it. Please do not brush your teeth with anything you can not eat.
Please do not bathe your baby in fluoridated water.
Thank you. Good luck Southhampton.

The problem with water fluoridation is that not all people can tolerate it equally. If people really want fluoride in their water, bottle it and sell it. I live in a fluoridated community, and because I don't want fluoride in my water, I have to go out and buy it. Also, when you have a new born child, and the child can not drink fluoridated water, you're always running to the store for more water....not fun.

I do not support adding flouride to the water supply. Many studies show that it causes harm to our body. Most of the water we use goes down the drain, used for laundry, toilet flushing, etc. Why are taxpayers required to pay for that kind of waste?
We are intitled to pure water, the way nature meant it to be.

If dental decay was a fluoride deficiency disease the Maoris would have had rampant decay drinking NZ fluoride-deficient water but a large survey of old skulls done in the 1930s by Weston Price a past-president of the American Dental Association confirmed that less than 1:2000 teeth were decayed. This changed to 40% decay within a generation after adopting foods of commerce based on white flour and sugar.
No large-scale dental research has ever confirmed any benefit to permanent dentition from adding fluoride and any apparent benefit to infants has been statistically insignificant (Carlos(USA) and Armfield (Australia).
Conversely, there is now overwhelming robust evidence of widespread harm ranging from lowered IQ in children to hypothyroidism (that is now rampant in fluoridated countries) to osteosarcoma a fortunately rare but almost invariably lethal bone cancer in young men exposed to fluoridated water in their early years.
Bureaucrats whether also medical and dental professionals have a fiduciary duty to act honestly and ethically. The evidence of both ineffectiveness and harm cannot therefore justify their continued endorsement of fluoridation.
Dr. M.E.Godfrey (Past-president NZ Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology)

I live in a fluoridated city and am in the process of moving to a non-fluoridated city. Believe me - fluoride is a poison. You will not appreciate this or understand this until you experience it. I hope you don't have to experience it. Fight against it with all you have!

The product- First off the FDA has never reviewed any ingested fluoride product ever. A congressman John Kelly of New Jersey was told of course it was approved but after 2 years and a lawsuit admitted no approval or review ever. The claim of thousands of safety study does not mention never one on the actual products used. The complex toxic brew of contaminates is to complex and much more toxic then a pure calcium or sodium fluoride. All waters are different and chemicals react differently in each water also so the just used double distilled deionized water which also has nothing to do with real world use. Total endorsement was given when the first set of studies were half done and before secondary teeth from birth were even exposed. They said the science was proven case closed half way into the tests. In 1954 professional reviewed the studies and found them so flawed by design as to prove nothing. This was show again by a in depth review of Austrialian Professior Sutton who proved the studies a fraud. Not real science. Seeing as fluoride has no ingested benefit it makes sense. Fluoride is a horrible industrial pollutant and the US A-bomb need fluoride and no lawsuits to prosper. The Dentists were just chumps who believed some faked studies. It takes lots of effort to ignore so much science now. Lawsuits should be their biggest fear. The kidney damage might be the first big one of many. Just like lead ,asbestos, tobacco, DDT. Jim Schultz

All scientific (pro and con) arguments aside, follow the money and see who amongst your leadership supporting fluoridation is profiting either monetarily or non-monetarily.

Do you people from USA, Canada,
New Zealand and Timbuctoo not have your own websites ? Do you spend all your time searching for references to fluoride on Google news.
Get a Life !

The use of the public water supplies to deliver a highly toxic drug that even proponents claim will only help people up to age 15( scientifically questionable) is to abrogate the rights of all those(the majority) to have safe unadulterated water. Which we cannot live without. A monumental travesty of justice.

I am shocked and happy to see the quality of the responses. Dr. Godfrey as a past President of a dental association is one of the many good dentists who are starting to speak out louder about the total folly of fluoridation. Westonaprice.org is just one of many sites with his insight into health being a nutrition issue. Cavities and all dental disease were very rare until civilzition brought processed foods to native peoples. We brought death and disease to healthy happy people who lived with nature(Many thought them savages because different). Price researched the minerals and nutrition and thought most got 8 times better nutrition then we civilized sick people. His book came out in 1939 and is still offers insight into health we could all benefit from.Many food were fermented to improve digestion and levels of natural fats were often very high as he studies many groups around the world. The pictures of teeth in huge beautiful smiles never seeing a doctor or dentist talks to nutrition. Pottinger price is also another website for nutrition. Jim Schultz I am sorry if I made it sound that all dentists lack knowledge but I have have seen so many fools speak all lies to city commissions. We need more that know the truth to speak out. We can all be better people and help others. Jim Schultz The 2007 Burt Detroit study also showed nutrition not fluoride is needed. Long fluoridated cities are having huge increases in cavities among the poor. Huge dental fluorosis also means fluoride poisoning.

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideA

lert.org

FAN Bulletin 959: Deconstructing Dr. Bailey (CDC)

May 28, 2008

Dear Mark,

We have posted online (links below) a three part critique of the testimony given by William Bailey (DDS, MPH) of the Oral Health Division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to the City Council of Fairbanks, Alaska, on March 6, 2008. Four days after hearing from Dr. Bailey, the Fairbanks City Council voted 3 to 2 to continue their fluoridation program.

Because the authority of the CDC is so influential around the world, FAN has gone to some length to critique Bailey's information and arguments. If ever a situation demanded the admonition "Question Authority," this is it.

Responses to Bailey's testimony are from myself, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Bruce Spittle, Chris Neurath (FAN's research associate), Carol Kopf (media officer for NYSCOF and FAN) and Carol Clinch, a very well-informed citizen activist from Waterloo, Ontario. Among other actions Carol is petitioning Health Canada to end fluoridation forthwith.

Part 1: http://fluoridealert

.org/bailey1.html

Part 2: http://fluoridealert

.org/bailey2.html

Part 3: Appendix 1 and references at: http://fluoridealert

.org/bailey3.html

The critique is being forwarded to Dr. Bailey for his response, which FAN will make available when it occurs.

Please choose a moment when you have some time to read this. Don't rush. There is some very important stuff here and this critique should be very helpful for any community confronted with testimony or other endorsements from the CDC. If any of our readers have the time and patience to get through our critique please let us know. We would be very pleased to hear your comments. Many thanks.

Paul Connett

From: <NYSCOF@aol.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Subject: Encouraging News
To: NYSCOF@aol.com


This from Pennsylvania's Mike Ewall

The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia's drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was invited one so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.

My testimony is below . Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren't pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). They affirmed that it's not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it's safe. However, they admitted that they weren't on top of the recent science on the issue.

I was delighted to see the council president's special counsel and the mayor's legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.

Anyway... feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.

Mike
-----


Testimony of Mike Ewall
Director of ActionPA
before
City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services
Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City's Drinking Water
Resolution #080288

April 14th, 2008

Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I'm the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.

I'm here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous "drug" in the water – one that is the most preventable.

Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.

Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we're talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.

Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products


However, the "fluoride" that is put in the drinking water isn't pharmaceutical grade, even though it's put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They're not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a "product", allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.

These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they're high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001).

Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decay

The intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn't used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with 'very good' or 'excellent' teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state's population that is receiving fluoridated water. Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can't afford dental care.

Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state's highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or 'mottling') of tooth enamel. It's a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia's rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%.

Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water

In late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn't use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they're not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water.

Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure

Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council's March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be "safe" by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA's "no longer considered safe" level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can't be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn't relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report's authors and others. Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.
org/fluoride/reasons
.html#reason1

EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation


The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA's own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a "safe" level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement.

Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems

Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain's absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.

Philadelphia's hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs


Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia's supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city's current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.

State mandate would take away local control and further increase costs

The state legislature is considering House Bill 1649
, which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state's water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state's water customers (it's mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). If HB 1649 passes, it'll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it's in the city's financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.

City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save money

In the medical profession, there is the principle "first, do no harm." This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city's water to start being fluoridated in 1954.

In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process.

There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I'd encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I'd be glad to provide access to these experts.

If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can't afford dental care.

Thank you.

Mike Ewall
Founder & Director
ActionPA
1434 Elbridge St.
Philadelphia, PA 19149
215-743-4884
catalyst@actionpa.or
g
http://www.actionpa.
org