Fluoridation News 1998

Expansion of Fluoridation Planned for Israel

November 15, 1998

A spokesman for the Mekorot Water Company, which supplies 75% of Israel's water, announced in August, 1998 that they are planning a nation wide fluoridation program. At present, only residents of the Greater Tel Aviv area and the Haifa area have been using fluoridated water. Communities with a population of 5,000 or more will be fluoridated. This plan is approved by the government of Israel. It will take two years to implement and will cost about 40 million skekels. Fluoridation is being represented as an "enrichment" of the water supply. This information came from the Arutz Sheva News Service.

California Water Fluoridation Drive Launched

October 7, 1998

The UPI news service reported on September 29, 1998 that a new public and private partnership has been formed to promote fluoridation of drinking water. Health and Welfare Secretary Sandra Smoley said today that her agency has joined Delta Dental Plan of California and the California Dental Association to raise private donations and generate federal grants for California communities that want to fluoridate their drinking water. California enacted a statewide fluoridation law two years ago but still ranks forty-seventh among the 50 states in delivering fluoridated water to its residents. The fluoridation law is an unfunded mandate. The State does not pay for the cost of fluoridation. Less than one third of all Californians receive fluoridated tap water compared to 60 per cent nationwide. The mandate authorizes municipalities with more than 10,000 water service connections to fluoridate their water if they can the raise money needed for capital start-up costs. To help them reach that goal, Delta Dental, the state's largest dental plan, has pledged $100,000. California Dental Association has pledged $30,000. Los Angeles announced plans in late September to fluoridate its municipal water supply. Sacramento, Yuba City, Port Hueneme and Pico Rivera have also announced plans to fluoridate.

Research Links Low Levels of Fluoride and Aluminum to Alzheimer's and Kidney Damage

October 6, 1998

In a study just published in the peer-reviewed journal Brain Research the presence of low levels of fluoride in the drinking water of test animals, equal to the amount of elemental fluorine found in fluoridated water, caused damage to the tissue of the brain that the authors identified as similar to the pathological changes found in humans with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.

While the purpose of this study was to assess the factors that enhance or inhibit the bioavailability of aluminum and its effects on the nervous system, the study looked at the effects of aluminum-fluoride and sodium-fluoride separately.

The authors report, "Histological evidence of glomerular distortion and other signs of kidney disorder were found in animals in both the aluminum-fluoride and sodium fluoride groups..."

"While the small amount of aluminum-fluoride in the drinking water of rats required for neurotoxic effects is surprising, perhaps even more surprising are the neurological results of the sodium-fluoride at the dose given in the present study (2.1 ppm). {the amount used to achieve 1 ppm of elemental fluorine used in fluoridation}. "Fluoride has diverse actions on a variety of cellular and physiological functions, including the inhibition of a variety of enzymes, a corrosive action in acid mediums, hypocalcemia, hyperkalemia, and possibly cerebral impairment."

The authors summarize, "Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride and sodium-fluoride in the drinking water of rats resulted in distinct morphological alterations of the brain, including the effects on neurons and cerebrovasculature."

While there are numerous studies linking fluoride to increased risk of hip fracture, cancer, genetic damage, bone pathology, and dental fluorosis, as identified in July 1997 by the union which consists of all of the scientists and other professionals at the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., this study adds further definition to a series of recent studies that have illuminated fluoride's adverse neurological impact and have anticipated the results from this research that focuses on the hippocampus region of the brain, and interaction with other neurotoxins.

A previous study by Mullenix, et al. in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 1995, documents abnormal behavioral responses by animals exposed to fluoride at various stages of gestation, which resulted in the exposed animals exhibiting either permanent hyperactivity if exposed prenatally, or what layman refer to as "the rat version of couch potato" if exposed after birth.

In "Psychopharmacology of Fluoride: A Review", 1994, the author A. Spittle concludes, "There would appear to be some evidence that chronic exposure to fluoride may be associated with cerebral impairment affecting particularly the concentration and memory of some individuals. These symptoms are reminiscent of those seen in the chronic fatigue syndrome."

In the "Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland", 1994, the author, J. A. Luke suggests that fluoride also effects the gland in the brain that produces melatonin, which has been established as critical to those people suffering from sleep disorders.

The follow-up question should be obvious: In light of this scientific evidence, is it in the best interest of our nation to continue a public policy a public policy that has already been rejected by 98% of Europe

that forces each man, woman, and child to ingest a known cumulative neurotoxin, which is added to our water supply with no control over total intake from all sources, or variances in susceptibility?

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act requires that each chemical that appears in our drinking water be re-assessed with a new criteria for assuring the safety of drinking water for the most susceptible segments of our population. The coming days will reveal whether the agencies that have been established to protect our health will act.

Lynn Landes, Director of Zero Waste America, says, "The Cancer Society has come under increasing criticism for focusing on cures and not on pollutants, which appear to be the major cause of most cancers. It looks like the Alzheimer's Association has adopted a similar strategy. As usual, the money to be made is in the prescription, not prevention.

Fluoride page: www.zerowasteamerica.org/Fluoride.htm


Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in the drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity, Julie A. Verner, Karl F. Jensen, William Horvath, Robert L. Isaacson, Brain Research, vol. 784, pp. 284-298, 1998.

Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats, Mullenix et al., Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 169-177, 1995

Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland, J. A Luke, Caries Research, Vol. 28, p204, 1994.

Psychopharmacology of Fluoride: A Review, A. Spittle, International Clinical Psychopharmacology, Vol. 9, 1994.

ISFR Web Site Comes Online

October 1, 1998

The International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) was founded in 1966 to further needed research and to share knowledge pertaining to the effects of fluoride on animal, plant and human life.

ISFR holds a conference once every two years. The twenty-second conference was held in Bellingham, Washington from August 24 to 27, 1998. Abstracts of papers presented at the conference are on the new web site at www.fluoride-journal.com.

ISFR publishes quarterly reports in Fluoride on the biological, chemical, ecological, industrial, toxicological and clinical aspects of inorganic and organic fluoride compounds. Fluoride provides a forum for differing scientific points of view. Back issues of Fluoride are being published on the new web site.

ISFR Conference: Breakthroughs in Vitamin Treatments for Chronic Fluoride Poisoning

September 3, 1998

The twenty-second conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research was held in Bellingham, Washington from August 24 to 27, 1998. Several papers presented at the conference described how vitamins can be used to reverse the damage that fluoride causes. We usually think of fluorosis as a permanent damage to bones or teeth. Fluoride can also damage other parts of the body. Damage to the soft tissues, such as liver, kidneys, and reproductive organs is reversible with vitamins.

In laboratory experiments with mice, fluoride damaged the tissues and cellular structures of ovaries and uterus. The scientists showed a series of microphotographs of the tissues they studied. The sequence of photographs showed the tissues being progressively damaged as the mice became intoxicated with fluoride. When the mice were given vitamin C and calcium supplements and fluoride was not put in their water anymore, the tissues became repaired almost to the original state of good health.

Fluoride impairs the production of free radical scavengers such as glutathione. Fluoride impairs the function of enzymes which prevent lipid peroxidation. These enzymes include glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase and catalase. Fluoride accumulates in ovaries.

Fluoride interferes with male fertility as well. In an experiment with male mice, a larger proportion of the sperm became abnormal because of fluoride ingestion. The sperm lost their motility or died. When the mice were given vitamin C and calcium and no fluoride, they significantly recovered.

In another experiment with mice, Vitamins E and D repaired the damage which fluoride did to liver and kidneys. Fluoride caused the glomeruli, those tiny blood vessels in the kidneys for removing waste, to atrophy. In the liver, fluoride caused fatty deposition and the death of cells. Vitamin E was beneficial because it is an anti-oxidant. Vitamin D promotes the absorption of calcium and phosphorus so that their optimal concentrations will be maintained in the blood. This optimal concentration supports the metabolic activity of various tissues. Vitamins E and D were effective after fluoride was removed from their diet.

In an experiment with rats, fluoride impaired the growth rate, but the rats which were given beta-carotene and superoxide dismutase supplements had a faster growth rate. Fluoride causes lipid peroxidation which is counteracted by beta-carotene and superoxide dismutase.

Corporate Power is Being Misused to Undermine the Preservation of Human Resources

August 28, 1998

The twenty-second conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research was held in Bellingham, Washington from August 24 to 27, 1998. Dr. Lennart Krook presented his findings that the official safe levels for fluoride in dairy cattle are toxic. He is a veterinarian at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Fluoride is toxic to bone resorbing cells and causes a decline in milk production which can bankrupt farmers in areas where there is fluoride air pollution. Fluoride accumulates in offspring. Fluoride causes smaller teeth and receding gums. In the article, Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?" in Covert Action Quarterly, Fall, 1992, Joel Griffiths describes a case of fluoride air pollution. Fluoride from aluminum smelters in upstate New York settled on the farm lands of Indian reservations in New York and Canada. The cows were crippled with skeletal fluorosis. Their teeth crumbled to the nerves and they starved. Some gave birth to stunted calves and then died.

Agencies such as the EPA and the NAS are responsible for setting effective standards for air pollution abatement. The limit for fluoride air pollution in New York is four times higher in New York than the limit in Canada. The cows in New York are just as susceptible to fluorosis as the cows in Canada. Dr. Krook suggests that there is a technology conspiracy. Polluter industries place their people on the standards setting committees for agencies which are responsible for protecting the environment. He recommends reading William H. Rodgers, Corporate Country, Rodale Press, for the details.

Cost/benefit analysis is a typical tool that is sometimes used to justify pollution on the grounds that the the need for profits outweighs a social value for a clean environment. Farmers have a right to keep their farms productive even if their farms are down wind of aluminum smelters. Pollutions standards are supposed to prevent the neccesity of suing for the loss of income and damage to property caused by pollution. Stuffing the standards committees with personnel favorable to polluters is a way of undermining attempts to prevent pollution.

Masters and Coplan, in a presentation at the ISFR conference in Bellingham, Washington, showed statistical evidence that the acid fluorides commonly used for fluoridating mumicipal water systems cause corrosion of lead from metal pipes and plumbing fixtures. The lead goes to the brain of children who drink this water. The lead damages the brain so that they become more likely to use cocaine and commit violent crimes. The cost of crime has a significant economic impact. A corporation is only one component in the total economic system. Components like the justice system, which do not produce anything, still cost money to operate.

ISFR Conference: Fluoridation and Lead from Water Pipes Causes Higher Violent Crime Rates

August 27, 1998

The twenty-second conference of the International Association for Fluoride Research was held in Bellingham, Washington from August 24 to 27, 1998. R.D. Masters and M. Coplan presented their findings on lead and silicofluorides. Lead is a heavy metal which damages neurons and deregulates neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine. These are essential for normal impulse control and learning. Without sufficient impulse control, there is a greater tendency for people to commit violent acts. Metal water pipes and brass plumbing fixtures are a significant source of lead. Two chemicals which are widely used in fluoridation, hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, are acids which leach lead into tap water. This causes a higher level of lead in children's blood indicating that more lead is going to the brain. Cocaine use and violent crime rates are higher in the communities which have these silicofluorides in the water than in the communities that do not. Even when the black population is considered separately, there is still significantly more cocaine use and violent crime in the communities with the silicofluorides in their tap water.

ISFR Conference: Newly Discovered Toxic Interaction of Fluoride and Aluminum in Tap Water is the Death Knell of Fluoridation

August 26, 1998

Many older papers claiming that the concentration of fluoride in public water systems is so small that we can be sure it does no harm have been published in scientific journals. New research, reported at the twenty-second conference of the International Association for Fluoride Research on August 25, 1998, has uncovered a fatal flaw in the research design of experiments with laboratory rats. It was the custom for laboratory experiments about fluoride toxicity to be done using sodium fluoride in distilled water for the rats' drinking water. It was presumed that if sodium fluoride at very low levels in distilled water did not harm the rats then fluoride in tap water must be safe.

Now, scientists have found that there is a toxic chemical reaction with aluminum and fluoride even at very low levels just like they put in the water. K. Jensen and coworkers found that when fluoride and aluminum combine to make AlF3 at very low concentrations in water, aluminum gets into the brain and kidney more easily. The accumulation of aluminum in the brain results in damage to the neurons thus resulting in an Alzheimer's-like condition with memory loss. Alum is commonly used for processing water for municipal water systems. This leaves small amounts of aluminum in the water which combine with fluoride.

ISFR Conference: Dr. Mullenix Presents More Evidence that Fluoride Damages the Brain

August 25, 1998

Presentations of scientific research at the twenty-second conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) began today. The highlight of the day was Dr. Mullenix's report that her laboratory studies that fluorine damages the brain. The toxic effect of fluorine in the brain is relevant to childhood leukemia. Leukemia is a cancer of the bone marrow which causes excess production of white blood cells The treatment for leukemia causes the cancer cells to go to the brain. Drugs must be used to kill the cancer cells in the brain if the treatment is to be successful. Prednisoline and dexamethasone have been used for this purpose. The molecular structures of these two drugs is almost the same. Dexamethasone has one fluorine atom in each molecule and prednisolone does not. Dexamethasone has become the drug of choice because it is more powerful. However, children who were treated with dexamethasone and who already had mediocre IQ lost ten more IQ points after treatment with dexamethasone. These children also grew more slowly, had narrower skull shapes and their teeth stopped developing.

In her latest laboratory studies, Dr. Mullenix found that dexamethasone impaired the behavior of rats in a way that is equivalent to hyperactivity in humans. Dr. Mullenix pioneered a computerized technology for these studies. Video cameras record the activity of rats at specified intervals. The activities of the rats are classified and then the sequence of activities can be compared. The rats on the dexamethasone had "dispersed" sequences. This means that their behavior sequences did not follow the usual patterns of healthy rats. The disrupted patterns of activity are reminiscent of hyperactivity in children.

Dr. Mullenix is in the Pscyhiatry Department at Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

Another presentation at the ISFR conference showed photographs of microscopic brain damage of rats which drank water with sodium fluoride (NaF). Dr. Chubek and co-workers found that the rats on the fluoridated water for 21 days had the highest concentrations of NaF and had brain cells that were smaller and mishapen. The myelin, a substance which surrounds certain axons and nerve fibers, was swollen:

"A neuropathological study and computerized morphometric analyses revealed revealed a marked shrinkage of cerebellar granular and Purkinje cells, perivascular myelin swelling, and astroglia reaction, especially in the white matter of brains in the NaF-treated animals. Neuronal and myelin changes appeared to be more pronounced ... "

The ISFR conference is being held in Bellingham, Washington. These conferences are held once every two years.

Seattle Rain: The Marketing Concept is Embraced by a Public Water Utility

July 7, 1998

On June 22, 1998, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution for the Seattle Public Utilities to study the feasibility of bottling Seattle's drinking water for sale. The proposed name for the bottled water is Seattle Rain. Councilwoman Margaret Pageler said that Seattle's water is pure enough to bottle. Pageler was quoted as saying, "A lot of us have gone to the store and seen people pay exorbitant amounts of money for bottled water and we ask: Is this really better than what we can get out of the tap?" The City Council perceives the demand for bottled water as a fad. Seattle Public Utilities may have to raise money to pay for a $70 million dollar plan to restore habitats for wild salmon in the Cedar River Watershed. Councilman Peter Steinbrueck was quoted as saying, "If we could get all the people who buy bottled water from other cities, states or countries to buy pure Seattle water we'd have more than enough to finance the restoration of the watershed." The theory is that water coming out of the treatment plant is purer than water that has passed through the pipes.

The bottled water market is definitely growing. Bottled water sales have been growing at 9 percent per year. This is faster than soft drink sales are growing. In 1996, bottled water sales were almost $3.4 billion. Soft drink sales were about $30 billion. Bottled Spring water has no calories, no additives and no sugar.1

A related market is the one for home water purifiers. In 1995, American homeowners bought $450 million in home water purifier systems. This was a 30 percent increase over 1994. As of 1996, 12 percent of homes have water purifiers. It is predicted that in 15 years 40 percent of American homes will have water purifier systems.2

There is a variety of reasons why people choose to avoid tap water. Some say it's the taste. One might reasonably infer that if the water tastes bad it may contain heavy metals from old pipes or chemical pollutants that people read about in the newspapers. Ordinary chlorination has failed to stop outbreaks of kryptosporidium. Sports bottles are a convenient substitute for soft drinks when people are away from home. People who do not own their own homes may have to rely on bottled water because they can't install heavy duty water purifiers.

A telephone survey in Toronto, Canada found that 73 percent of the respondents were concerned about chemical pollutants in tap water. 35 percent obtained at least 50 percent of their drinking water from an alternative source such as water filters or bottled water.3

A survey in Iowa found that 81 percent of homes use public water and 19 percent use private well water. 26 percent use some bottled water and 11 percent use a filtration system.4

Even people who do not have much money avoid tap water. A survey of patients at two community health centers in Rhode Island in 1994 found that 55 percent used only bottled water for drinking. 59 percent of households with children did so. Most of the patients were on public assistance or uninsured. 52 percent of children on public assistance were getting bottled water. They do not know the fluoride content, but they judge the water by its taste or on what they have heard about tap water.5

Most brands of bottled water contain little or no fluoride. A survey in Houston, Texas revealed that most bottled waters are well below 0.3 parts per million fluoride.6 The fluoride content in 83 percent of bottled water brands in an Iowa survey was less than 0.16 parts per million.7

The concentration of fluoride in tap water is no longer a reliable indicator of how much fluoride people are getting. Fluoride is in dental products such as toothpaste. Fluoride gets into foods and beverages which are processed with water in a fluoridated town and then shipped to market in an unfluoridated town. Bottled water generally has little or no fluoride, but there are exceptions. Almost none of the bottled water brands list the fluoride content on the label. Fluoride may be removed by some water purifiers, but not others.8

As more people avoid using tap water for drinking and cooking, the pro-fluoridation political activists fret that people are not getting their fluoride. It seems that the more discriminating consumers who would more likely oppose fluoridation of tap water would rather vote with their pocket books. Dental public health specialists pursue their fantasy that fluoridation can deliver a controllable daily dose while consumers are opting for ways to take control of the quality of their water in a direct and more individuated way.

Part of this information came from the Seattle Times, June 23, 1998, p. A1.


  1. Robert Lenzner, "A monster beverage event," Forbes, October 20, 1997, p. 64.
  2. Time, June 10, 1996, p. 70.
  3. BA Auslander, "Toronto Tap Water: Perception of its Quality and Use of Alternatives," Canadian Journal of Public Health, March-April, 1993, pp. 99-102.
  4. S Van Winkle, et al., "Water and Formula Fluoride Concentrations: Significance for Infants Fed Formula," Pediatric Dentistry, July-August, 1995, pp. 305-310.
  5. AM Weissman, "Bottled Water Use in an Immigrant Community: A Public Health Issue?" American Journal of Public Health, August, 1997, pp. 1397-1380.
  6. JT Chan, et al., "Fluoride Content of Bottled Waters: Implications for Dietary Supplementation," Texas Dental Journal, April, 1990, pp. 17-21.
  7. S Van Winkle, op. cit.
  8. GM Whitford, GM, "Intake and Metabolism of Fluoride," Advances in Dental Research, June, 1994, pp. 5-14.

Combination of Fluoride and Aluminum has Unforeseen Effects in Drinking Water

June 25, 1998

In two recently published experiments with rats, low amounts of aluminum fluoride and sodium fluoride in drinking water caused brain cell neurotoxicity. This research is reviewed in an editorial and abstracts in the May, 1998 issue of Fluoride magazine. Fluoride is published by the International Society for Fluoride Research.

It is a common practice to treat public drinking water with alum, which contains aluminum. Dr. Bruce Spittle commented:

"It appears that a complex interaction may occur between fluoride and aluminium so that when both are present in rats' drinking water, at low concentration, 0.5 ppm of trivalent aluminium ion and 1 ppm of fluoride ion, they combine to form aluminium fluoride, AlF3, which has the ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain, and also to become deposited in the kidneys. When 2.1 ppm of sodium fluoride is present in the drinking water of rats, corresponding to 1.1 ppm of sodium ion and 1 ppm of fluoride ion, the fluoride ion appears to be able to combine with aluminium from the food resulting in a similar entry to the brain and kidneys but with some points of difference. When the fluoride is present with larger amounts of aluminium, such as 5 ppm of trivalent aluminium and about 10 ppm of fluoride or 50 ppm of trivalent aluminium and about 100 ppm of fluoride, the resulting overt toxicity is less."

One of the surprising findings of these experiments is that aluminum fluoride in such small concentrations is more toxic than much larger concentrations. This is known as a paradoxical effect.

The citations for the aluminum fluoride toxicity research are:

JA Varner, KF Jensen, W Horvath and RL Isaacson, "Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride or Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity," Brain Research, 784, 284-298, 1998. Reprints: Julie A. Varner, jvarner@lineberryresearch.com.

RA Isaacson, JA Varner and KF Jensen, "Toxin-Induced Blood Vessel Inclusions Caused by the Chronic Administration of Aluminum and Sodium Fluoride and Their Implications for Dementia," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 825, 152-166, 1997. Reprints: Robert L. Isaacson, isaacson@binghamton.edu.

Consumer Awareness of Fluoride Toothpaste Hazard Increases

June 8, 1998

Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began requiring new wording in the warnings on fluoride toothpaste labels. Now that the new toothpaste is coming on to store shelves, people are noticing. The FDA purpose was to increase consumer awareness of possible harm. The new warning reads: "Warning: Keep out of the reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional assistance or contact a Poison Control Center immediately."

In the year before the new warning, 5,442 toothpaste related calls were made to poison control centers. In the first year since the new warning, 12,855 toothpaste related calls were made to poison control centers.

The American Dental Association is dismayed. The ADA complains that this warning is required only because fluoride is classified by the FDA as a drug. The ADA insists that such exposure to fluoride is not life threatening, but may cause dental fluorosis. A spokesman for Colgate-Palmolive, says that the warning conflicts with the traditional idea that the purpose of fluoride toothpaste is to prevent cavities and therefore fluoride toothpaste is for public health. The warnings required by the FDA are also in the interest of public health. The FDA cautiously performed a scientific review before requiring the new wording of the warning on fluoride toothpaste labels.

We reported in December, 1996 that a class action suit against toothpaste manufacturers was filed in the United Kingdom by the parents of more than 200 children. The children had permanent damage to their teeth because they had zealously brushed their teeth with fluoride toothpaste every day. For them, dental fluorosis is not a trivial discoloration of teeth.

Part of the information for this article came from the New York Times, March 24, 1998, p. A18 and the Boston Globe, March 25, 1998, p. A1.

San Diego Fluoridation Risk Assessment Symposium To Be Held June 20-21, 1998

May 5, 1998

David Kennedy, DDS, reports that a Fluoridation Risk Assessmnet Symposium will be held in San Diego, California on June 20 and 21, 1998. Dr. Kennedy practices dentistry in San Diego. Issues to be considered at the symposium will be whether fluoridation causes cancer, an Alzheimers-like brain deterioration, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone disease. Famous fluoride toxicology experts will be there. For details, refer to Dr. Kennedy's e-mail communication.

Is the Dental Fluorosis Trade Off Too High?

May 1, 1998

We reported earlier this year that the California OEHHA has proposed that the safe level for fluoride in drinking water should not be higher than 0.8 ppm so that the prevalence of dental fluorosis in the population using fluoridated water will be kept to an acceptable level. Now, dental public health scientists at the University of Michigan report that the acceptable trade off may be as low as 0.7 ppm fluoride in water. Even at this level, the prevalence of dental fluorosis is over 20 percent. The University of Michigan report was originally published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 57(3) 136-143, 1997. The abstract is in the February, 1998 issue of Fluoride, the official publication of the International Society for Fluoride Research

One might consider whether caution would be preferable to a trade off which can only be measured by uncertain statistics. For a review of this policy debate, see The Precautionary Principle in the Related Topics subdirectory of the Environment directory of Fluoride Issues.

ISFR Conference to be Held in August, 1998 in Bellingham, Washington

April 7, 1998

The 22nd Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) will be held in Bellingham, Washington. The conference will be held from August 24 through 27, 1998 at the Best Western Lakeway Inn, 714 Lakeway Drive, Bellingham, Washington 98226, Tel. (360) 671-1011, Fax: (360) 676-8519. Scientists from all over the world will present research papers on topics related to fluoride. The second call for abstracts of papers to be presented at the conference was recently sent out. Registration for students and guests is $150 before June 1, 1998 and $200 after June 1, 1998. For complete details and registration forms, contact Dr. Yu at:

ISFR-XXIInd Conference
Dr. Ming-Ho Yu
Huxley College of Environmental Studies
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225-9181 USA
(360) 650-3676 Fax: (360) 650-7284

Santa Cruz, California City Council Defies Fluoridation Law

April 5, 1998

On March 25, 1998, the Santa Cruz City Council voted 6 to 1 to require voter approval before fluoridating the city's water. The new city ordinance contravenes a law passed by the California State Legislature in 1995 which requires cities to fluoridate their water whether the people want to vote on it or not. For more information, see Edwin Rugh's website currently at: members.tripod.com/~safewater/.

Safety of Fluoridation Questioned After U.S. Government Coverup Comes to Light

April 1, 1998

A five person task force has been appointed to review the safety of fluoridation in Calgary, Alberta. City Alderman Jon Lord is reported by the Calgary Sun, March 21, 1998, to have said, "Are we growing kids with brain damage so they can have good teeth?" He was referring to neurotoxicology research by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix and co-workers which was published in 1995. A Calgary resident, Elke Babiuk, was denied admittance to a task force meeting. The task force spokeman, Dr. Read Seiner, said that their scientific review was not intended to be an open forum.

Dr. Mullenix was fired from her prestigious position at Forsyth Institute because her research proved that sodium fluoride caused damage to the nervous system of rats and was published in a respected scientific journal in 1995. Over the years, other great scientists who made impartial searches for the truth like she did were harassed or demoted in various ways. The real purpose for the reckless promotion of fluoridation was the fear of the U.S. intelligence cultists that there would be a public outcry against fluoride pollution from atomic bomb manufacturing. The supporting facts for these conclusions have recently been reviewed in The Winds, a magazine published on the World Wide Web. The review article, "Did Government Approve Citizens as Toxic Waste Sites?" is currently archived at www.thewinds.org/archive/medical/fluoride01-98.html.

After reading this article, one might conclude that the evidence that fluorides are harmful to the brain has been covered up for many years by a combination of cynical intelligence agencies and incompetent science research managers who act like Luddites.

Fluoridation Proposal Comes to Naught in Hot Springs, Arkansas

March 25, 1998

In February, 1998, a vote on fluoridation was planned in Hot Springs, Arkansas. A surprised local citizen contacted John Yaimouyainnis, Ph.D, a biochemist, who was in Hot Springs on vacation. Dr. Yaimouyainnis made a speech in favor of pure water. He is the author of Fluoride: The Aging Factor. Opponents of fluoridation flooded the newspaper with authoritative articles and showed strength at the council meetings. The proponents withdrew their proposal.

A Successful Test of the Duty to Warn Strategy

March 24, 1998

The March 2, 1998 GAAF newsletter reports a strategy that was successful in stopping a fluoridation proposal. There are some subsets of the population which have been identified as being at risk for health problems arising from drinking fluoridated water. They are described in Toxicological Profile of Fluoride, p. 112. One legal implication, pointed out by George Glasser, is that there is a duty of fluoridators to warn these subsets of the population of potential damage to their health. Betty Fowler, representing Safe Water Coalition of Washington State, persistently informed local officials in Spokane, Washington of their duty to warn until they decided they didn't need to impose fluoridation.

The Global Alliance Against Fluoridation (GAAF) offers advice on how to apply the duty to warn concept. For more information, contact:

Park West Station
P.O. Box 20832
New York, N.Y. 10025-1516
(212) 665-1757

World Wide Impact of USDA Proposed Organic Food Label Rules

March 23, 1998

An article in the Manchester Guardian Weekly, March 22, 1998, p. 14, entitled, "Give Us This Day Our Toxic Bread," expounds upon the world wide impact of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed organic food rules. The USDA proposed standards for "organic" farming would "outlaw genuine organic production all over the world." The standards would be interpreted to prohibit the states from setting standards higher than the USDA's.

It is probable that American corporations would later complain that countries such as Canada and the European Union were engaging in unfair trade practices if they maintained a higher standard of organic food. The World Trade Organization refers disputes like this to the Codex Alimentarius, a "food standard body dominated by corporate scientists." The Codex, of course, can't see any scientific evidence that European organic produce is any different than American organic produce.

"The consumption of organic food is rising 20% to 30% per year." Organic food production could eventually become the dominant agricultural land use. Big business can't compete successfully in small scale labor intensive organic farming. The excessively centralized economic control which the USDA would impose is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union's centalized "command economy."

One might consider that one of the reasons why the incompetent practice of public water fluoridation has persisted for so many years is that scientific research about it is managed through a system of excessively centralized control by agencies of the U.S. government.

Opposition Stalls Fluoridation in United Kingdom

March 12, 1998

Plans to make artificial fluoridation of public drinking water mandatory throughout the United Kingdom have been put on hold because of the opposition of the British Home Secretary, Jack Straw. According to The Observer newspaper (2/1/98), Secretary Straw intervened on behalf of opponents of mandatory fluoridation, urging Health Secretary Frank Dobson to take seriously the scientific evidence linking fluoride to bone disease, infant mortality and brain damage. Mr. Straw pressed the Health Secretary to meet with fluoridation opponents, saying, "Having looked carefully and objectively at both sides, I do feel that theirs is a valid viewpoint. I would be grateful if you perhaps reply more fully to the points raised."

As a result of strong and persistent citizen opposition, only a handful of areas in the British Isles have been fluoridated. The battle is particularly fierce in Northern Ireland where, despite the recommendation of all health boards to fluoridate, nearly all of it's district councils have rejected the idea because of public health concerns.

The British Dental Association has been lobbying the government to fluoridate water for some time and Mr. Dobson as well as Tessa Jowell, the Public Health Minister, are said to favor the policy. But Mr. Straw's intervention has compelled the British government to conduct a further review of the situation. In the public health paper, Our Healthier Nation, the government made a commitment to "seek to take account of these views and to find a way forward."

California OEHHA Considers Lowering the Safe Level of Fluoride in Drinking Water

March 2, 1998

The California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Asessment (OEHHA), Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section, proposed in November, 1997 to lower the safe level of fluoride in drinking water. The California Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 requires the OEHHA to adopt public health goals for contaminants in drinking water based on exclusively public health considerations. A public health goal of 0.8 ppm for fluoride in drinking water is proposed to prevent dental fluorosis. This takes into account the relative source contribution of fluoride in drinking water. This standard is intended to prevent even mild dental fluorosis, whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommendation of not more than 2.0 ppm fluoride in drinking water is intended to prevent moderate to severe dental fluorosis.

The OEHHA maintains that although there is scientific research showing that fluoridation is a cause of hip fractures, the evidence is not sufficient to provide a mathematical basis for calculating a public health goal.

The OEHHA reports was originally published at www.calepa.cahwnet.gov/oehha/docs/phgs/2getphgs.htm and is reprinted herein pdf format. There is a list of toxic chemicals on the web site. Go down the list to find the document on fluoride.

Now is the Time to Comment on USDA Organic Egg Standards and Fluoridation

February 25, 1998

The USDA has proposed new rules for a federal standard for certified organically grown eggs. The rules for organic eggs would allow up to 20% conventional feed, antibiotics, parasiticides and coccidiostats, irradiation in food processing, and warehousing of hens. The rules will allow the use of feed grains from fields where sewage sludge containing heavy metals was used as fertilizer. Genetically engineered organisms would be eligible for the organic food label. Nearly a dozen of the huge producers of organic eggs lobbied for this ruling. Smaller organic egg producers are concerned that they could be driven out of business by the fee structure for certifying their products. A federal law concerning organic foods could take precedence over the California organic foods law because of the interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution. In this way, the standards for organic eggs would be being lowered.

If you would like to contact the USDA to suggest a change in rules, you must include the Docket No. TMDD-94-00-2 and the section numbers of proposed rules. The deadline for your comments is March 16, 1998. You can see the proposed standards and make comments at the USDA web site at www.ams.usda.gov/nop. Send your letters to:

Eilenn Stommes, Deputy Administrator
Room 4007-So, Ag Stop 0275
P.O. Box 96456
Washington, D.C. 20090-6456

To the best of my knowledge, the USDA does not prohibit using artificially fluoridated water in organic egg production. There is nothing organic about acid fluoride (hydrofluosilicic acid) or sodium fluoride. These sources of fluoride ions should not be allowed in drinking water of hens for egg production. Research financed by the American Dental Association showed that chickens used in baby food is an excessive source of fluoride ions.

Is Fluoride a Nutrient for Infants?

February 22, 1998

The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare is considering whether fluoride ions are necessary for the health of premature infants. Those wishing to comment should send their written comments to HEW before July 1, 1998. Be sure to include the Docket No. 96N-0391. For more information, see the complete news report or the Federal Register, January 15, 1998, pp. 24404-24405.

Fluoridation Costs Under Estimated in Bremerton, Washington

February 8, 1998

The Bremerton City Council originally estimated that the cost of bringing fluoridation to Bremerton would be $90,000. Now, they are estimating a cost of $300,500. Mr. Phil Heggen, a Bremerton resident, estimates that when the cost of corrosion reduction is included, the cost is closer to one million dollars. A letter from Mr. Heggen gives the details. Acid fluoride contributes to corrosion. Acid fluoride is the most commonly chosen chemical for adding fluoride ions to public water supplies. See related articles on corrosion in the Fluoride and Lead Index in the Environment directory of Fluoride Issues.

Sacramento City Council Holds Public Hearing on Fluoridation

January 13, 1998

A public hearing was held this afternoon at the Sacramento, California City Hall. The City Council listened to two water works experts explain the feasibility of fluoridation. The state legislature passed a mandatory fluoridation law in 1995. However, the law states that cities have to find a way to pay the costs of fluoridation without raising utility rates. State funds are not likely to be made available for financing fluoridation. The Sacramento Dental Association offered to pay for the capital cost of fluoridation. The city has 28 wells which operate the year around. Each of these wells would have to be equipped with a fluoridation feed mechanism.

Concerned citizens spoke for or against fluoridation. Several of the council members expressed their disdain at having to listen to medical arguments from either side. The council members were interested in the legal issues of how to be in compliance with applicable state laws and where to get the money for installing and operating the fluoridation system. Sarah Foster, (916) 852-6300, spoke for three minutes and presented documentation that there are hidden costs in fluoridation and that when cities implemented the fluoridation mandate, they have found it necessary to increase the utility rates to pay for it. The council will consider fluoridation again next month.

Copyright © 2002 Daniel A. Montgomery