Fluoridation News 1999

Committee on Science has concerns about fluoride toxicity

July 2, 1999

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science sent a letter to Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator requesting information about EPA policy in regard to fluoridation and health risks. Following is a copy of the letter. Reference is made to an article published in Salon magazine, "Fear of Fluoride," by Mark Hertsgaard and Phillip Frazer. The article is online at www.salonmagazine.com/news/1999/02/17news.html. "Fear of Fluoride" reviews new scientific evidence of fluoride toxicity and some of the attempts to hide that evidence.

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin. Chairman, GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California. Ranking Minority Member



WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301,br> (202) 225-637
TTY: (202) 226-4410

May 10, 1999

The Honorable Carol M. Browner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Browner:

The Committee on Science has received a number of letters recently regarding the potential health risk from fluoride in drinking water at the current maximum contaminant level (MCL). According to the enclosed Salon article and other information I have received, the current MCL may harm human health, particularly in certain sensitive subpopulations such as the young, the elderly, diabetics and athletes. In addition, the article states the Clinton Administration's goal to increase the percentage of the population receiving fluoridated water from 62% to 75% by next year.

I would like to request your agency's response to some questions I have regarding the fluoride:

(1) I understand that EPA does not endorse water fluoridation. Has the Agency taken any steps to have EPA removed from the list of endorsers of water fluoridation published by the American Dental Association? If you have, have they complied?

(2) What chronic toxicity test data are there on sodium fluorosilicate? On hydrofluorsilicic acid?

(3 ) What steps have you taken to address questions related to the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCL[G]) for fluoride in drinking water? If you have not taken steps to address these questions, why not? If not, when will you take such steps? When do you estimate that the work involved in addressing these questions will be complete?

The Honorable Carol M. Browner
May 10, 1999
Page two

(4) Do you interpret Section 101(b)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 as requiring EPA to set its MCL(G)s at a level that protects all persons, including sensitive subpopulations, such as infants, children, people who drink 4 or more liters of water per day, people with allergies or hypersensitivity to fluoride, and people with renal disease?

(5) Is the Agency satisfied with fluoride doses delivered to the public via drinking water under and MCL(G) of 4 milligrams/liter (mg/l) when added to the fluoride intake from dental products, pesticide residues, food and beverages will not cause an adverse health effect?

(6) What is the margin of safety for infants who consume drinking water containing 4 mg/l of fluoride?

(7) What is the margin of safety for persons receiving kidney dialysis treatment, diabetics or those who have a hypersensitivity or allergy to fluoride who consume drinking water containing 4 mg/l of fluoride?

(8) Does the incidence of dental fluorosis among at least 22% of American children indicate that, at least among these children, an overdosing is occurring?

(9) What steps has the Agency taken to address the hazards identified with fluoride exposure in the following publications that appeared since the EPA reaffirmed its drinking water standards for fluoride? These publications include: (a) Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J., Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17 169-177 (1995).
(b) 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).
(c) 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). (d) Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B.,Liang, G.H., Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996). (e) Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li. X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O., Fluoride 28 (1995). (f) Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A., Caries Research 28 204 (1994).

The Honorable Carol M. Browner
May 10, 1999
Page three

Please provide the committee with copies of any EPA publications, studies, reports or memos relating to the fluoride MCL.

I respectfully request your response to our concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Ken Calvert
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment


This is an electronic copy for information only

Reno and Las Vegas, Nevada to begin fluoridation

June 25, 1999

On May 24, 1999, Governor Kenny Guinn approved Assembly Bill 284, a mandatory fluoridation law. The law requires the large water systems serving the Reno and Las Vegas areas to fluoridate their water. The concentration of fluoride must be not less than 0.7 ppm and not more than 1.2 ppm. The bill was sponsored by assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas. Ray Rawson, R-Las Vegas, was the leading fluoridation proponent in the Senate. The bill was opposed by assemblywoman Sharron Angle, R-Reno. Citing a 1992 rejection of fluoridation by the Washoe County Commission, she urged the Assembly to let the people of Washoe County vote on whether they should have fluoridation in their county.

Fluoridation plan goes down the drain in Hutchinson, Kansas

May 28, 1999

On March 30, the Hutchinson City Council voted 3-2 not to apply for a fluoridation grant from the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund. The $100,000 grant was offered for injecting fluoride into the City's 16 wells. Among those who testified at the hearing was Albert W. Burgstahler, a retired chemistry professor from the University of Kansas. He expounded upon reports linking fluoride and osteoporosis, a bone disease that becomes more prevalent in old age.

Councilman Ron Leslie was the swing vote. He was concerned that water fluoridation would contribute to osteoporosis. He suggested it might be more effective to target dental care than to put it in everybody's water. A motion was made to accept the grant from United Methodist Health Ministry Fund, but spend it on education and topical fluoride applications. The motion failed, 3-2.

-- from the The Hutchinson News, March 31, 1999

Report on fluoride hazard coverup listed in the Project Censored 1999 yearbook

May 26, 1999

Project Censored is an academic program at Sonoma State University. The program is directed by Peter Phillips in the Sociology Department. The program examines under reported news stories and investigates the reasons why they are under reported. The Project Censored yearbook for 1999 lists the top 25 news storied which were chosen by students in 1998. Number 18 on the list is the story by Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb," Waste Not, September, 1997. The Project Censored web site is at www.sonoma.edu/ProjectCensored/menu.html.

Griffiths and Bryson used recently declassified government documents. During World War Two, the Manhattan Project was a secret program for building atomic bombs. Fluoride was used for refining uranium. Fluoride pollution caused damage to livestock and crops. The government was afraid that lawsuits would break the veil of secrecy. Government scientists found evidence that fluoride was neurotoxic, but covered it up. Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb was commissioned by the Christian Science Monitor, but then they inexplicably chose not to publish it. The article is online at www.inter-view.net/~sherrell/bomb.htm.

In a follow up article, "Toxic Secrets: Fluoride and the A-Bomb Program," Griffiths and Bryson show that even many years after the Manhattan Project, the chief toxicologist for the project, the Dr. Harold Hodge, omitted to tell Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a zoologist who does toxicology research, about the toxicity of fluoride. Toxic Secrets is online at www.icom.net/~nexus/fluoridebomb.html.

The 155 pages of declassified documents about fluoride and the Manhattan Project are available from Waste Not, (315)379-9200, for the cost of mailing. For further information, contact: William Hirzy, (202)260-4683, hirzy.john@epa.gov or Mike Ewall, (215)743-4884, pen@envirolink.org.

Fluoridation in Mesa, Arizona and some current perceptions

May 5, 1999

On January 19, 1999 the Mesa City Council voted 3-2 in favor of fluoridation. The American Dental Association says fluoridation is PERFECTLY safe. The Environmental Protection Agency union of professionals unanimously opposes fluoridation, citing scientific evidence that fluoride causes bone disease, cancer, genetic mutations, and is harmful to the nervous system.

Barry Forbes, in an article in the Mesa, Arizona Tribune, December 13, 1998, p. F3, entitled "Who's telling truth on fluoride? pointed out that the ADA has been selling its Seal of Approval since 1960. Over 1300 products carry it. 65 brands of toothpaste have the ADA Seal of Approval. He concludes,

The EPA union of scientists, which doesn't earn a dime from its expert opinion, claims fluoride is toxic and causes systemic medical problems -- not the least of which is cancer. The American Dental Association, which "endorses" dozens of fluoride-added products for untold amounts of money, maintains fluoride is perfectly, wonderfully safe.

Whom do you believe?

There are many chemicals which were once thought to be safe. DDT was thought to be harmless to people and the environment when used as recommended. Agent Orange was thought to be totally natural and non-toxic. People take pride in having a good purpose for advocating the use of various chemicals. Fluoridation is another one of these practices which was mistakenly thought to be safe.

Mesa, Arizona City Council Meeting Minutes, January 19, 1999

The City Council of the City of Mesa met in a Regular Council Meeting in the upper level meeting room of the Council Chambers, 57 East 1st Street, on January 19, 1999 at 5:45 p.m.


Mayor Wayne Brown, Jim Davidson, John Giles, Keno Hawker, Bill Jaffa, Dennis Kavanaugh, Pat Pomeroy



f. Fluoride Feed Systems at the CAP Water Treatment Plant and Three Booster Pump Stations. City of Mesa Project No. 99-86.

This project consists of the installation of fluoride feed systems at four City potable water facilities.

Recommend award to low bidder, RDH Environmental Services, in the amount of $499,816.00.

In response to a request from Mayor Brown, Utilities Manager David Plumb highlighted a brief presentation on the fluoride issue.

Mayor Brown commented that fluoride has been the subject of extensive discussion and indicated his intention to limit speakers in support of and opposition to this matter to ten minutes total per side.

Louis Stradling, former Councilmember and long-time resident of Mesa, indicated that he will be the sole speaker and utilize the full ten-minute allocation. Mr. Stradling presented data to the audience in opposition to the addition of fluoride to the City's water supply. Mr. Stradling stated the opinion that government should not be involved in this issue and stressed the importance of allowing citizens to choose themselves whether or not to digest fluoride into their bodies. Mr. Stradling expressed the opinion that fluoride constitutes a health hazard and urged the Council to stipulate a 90-day delay on this matter and conduct public hearings/open forums to gain input and provide facts.

Mayor Brown thanked Mr. Stradling for his remarks.

Mayor Brown advised that five citizens in favor of fluoridation will now address the Council and speak for two minutes each.

Laurie Buckles, a dental hygienist, stated the opinion that a majority of Mesa's citizens are in support of fluoridation and commented that millions of people suffer from preventable oral diseases. Ms. Buckles urged the Council not to deny citizens the benefits of fluoride.

Jerry Jones, a dentist and citizen of Mesa, addressed the Council and noted that the City's water supply currently contains fluoride levels but said that the increased amount will be of substantial benefit to everyone within the community. Dr. Jones stated that the respected medical and scientific community accept and encourage the fluoridation of water.

Dr. Clifford Harris addressed the Council regarding this matter and said that the addition of fluoride into the water will benefit the entire community. Dr. Harris added that fluoride increases bone strength and is important in the treatment of osteoporosis. Dr. Harris commented that no proof exists to support the premise that fluoride causes cancer or cardiovascular disease and urged the Council to approve this item.

Bev Tittle-Baker informed the Council that she had e-mailed them and requested that they contact Community Information and Referral and request that they identify available resources for people with poor oral health. Ms. Baker reported that only two such resources exist and commented that an opportunity such as this to prevent oral decay must not be missed.

Dr. Keith Crandall noted that he is speaking in opposition to the addition of fluoride into the City's water supply and questioned why the Federal Drug and Food Administration has not approved fluoride. Dr. Crandall requested that the Council either vote in opposition to this matter or grant a 90-day delay before committing to a contract and implementing the program.

Mayor Brown advised that in view of the fact that Dr. Crandall spoke in opposition to this issue, he will allow one more speaker representing those in support of the item.

Jerry Jones readdressed the Council and expressed the opinion that fluoride does reduce dental cavities and will benefit both the young and the old in our community. Dr. Jones spoke in opposition to the requested 90-day delay and urged the Council to cast their vote in support of fluoridation.

Mayor Brown thanked the speakers for their input.

Councilmember Jaffa stated that he supports fluoridation and stated that in his opinion the most crucial benefit of fluoridation will be providing the poor in our community with a proven defense against tooth decay.

Councilmember Pomeroy advised that the addition of fluoride into the water is an extremely controversial issue. Councilmember Pomeroy added that he does not support compelling citizens to ingest fluoride and indicated he would not support the measure.

Mayor Brown concurred with Councilmember Pomeroy's comments and said that the ingestion of fluoride should be a personal rather than government dictated choice.

Vice Mayor Giles expressed the opinion that the addition of fluoride into the City's water supply will greatly benefit the citizens of Mesa and added that in his opinion significant evidence exists to warrant this measure.

Councilmember Kavanaugh commented that a function of government is to protect the public health and said that is the reason why he supports fluoridation.

Councilmember Hawker stated the opinion that this is an issue that should not be dictated by a governmental body and said he will vote in opposition to fluoridation.

Councilmember Davidson expressed the opinion that mistruths and inconsistencies exist on both sides of the issue but added that in the interest of public health he will support fluoridation.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Giles, seconded by Councilmember Kavanaugh, that the recommendation of staff be approved.

Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:

AYES - Davidson-Giles-Jaffa-Kavanaugh

NAYS - Brown-Hawker-Pomeroy

Mayor Brown declared the motion carried by majority vote.

A leading Canadian fluoride authority finds that water fluoridation may not be a good idea

April 28, 1999

Dr. Hardy Limeback is a professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto. He has been a consultant to the Canadian Dental Association for many years. He is a recognized authority on fluoridation. Those who promote fluoridation have often cited his work. In an interview for the Toronto Star, Dr. Limeback said that water fluoridation is not necessary. Although he still believes that fluoride toothpaste is effective in preventing tooth decay, he is concerned about the risk of getting too much fluoride from water. In fluoridated Toronto, people have twice as much fluoride in their hip bones as people in unfluoridated Montreal. High accumulation of fluoride makes the bones more brittle. Published scientific research studies have consistently shown that older people who drank fluoridated water for many years are more likely to get hip fractures. Dr. Limeback has quit drinking fluoridated water. Now he buys distilled water. He drank fluoridated water for 35 years. Now he has joint problems which cleared up when he switched to non-fluoridated water.

Most of the children in Dr. Limeback's dental practice have dental fluorosis. The teeth are mottled with white or brown spots and are weak and porous. This is an early sign that more fluoride is being accumulated than is good for the bones. That tiny one part per million of fluoride added to water is not so harmless because the fluoride continues to accumulate in the bones. Dr. Limeback was quoted as saying,

Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never. In fluoridated areas, people should never use fluoride supplements. We tried to get them banned for children but (the dentists) wouldn't even look at the evidence we presented. . .

Fluoride gets into food and beverage production in a variety of ways. There is now a lot more fluoride in food and beverages than could be imagined when water fluoridation was popularized 50 years ago. Dr. Limeback says that it costs more to treat the dental fluorosis than to treat the cavities which were hypothetically prevented by drinking fluoridated water.

-- abstracted from The Toronto Star, April 25, 1999

Dr. Limeback's statement on fluoride is at www.interlog.com/~hardyl/fluoride/fluoride.html. His home page is at www.interlog.com/~hardyl/home.html.

Tribute to John Colquhoun

April 27, 1999

John Colquhoun, editor of Fluoride, the official journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR), died on March 23, 1999. He had intestinal cancer. As Chief Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand, Dr. Colquhoun ardently promoted fluoridation. After diligently studying the scientific evidence, he changed his mind. In an article reprinted in , 31(2), 1998, pp. 103-118, entitled, "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation," Dr. Colquhoun stated,

I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence."

Dr. Albert Burgstahler, the guiding light of ISFR, comments on the tragic loss of Dr. Colquhoun in an editorial in Fluoride, , 32(1), 1999, p. 1.

While preparing this long-overdue issue of Fluoride for publication, we learned, to our great sorrow, that our much-admired editor for the last eight years, Dr John Colquhoun, passed away on March 23 after gradually losing his battle against complications of intestinal cancer.

From the time he first wrote to me in the early 1980s, when he was Auckland's principal Dental Health Officer, I sensed that Dr Colquhoun was no ordinary public health official. He, unlike others in his position, had begun to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that water fluoridation, which he had previously vigorously promoted, was actually showing little evidence of reducing tooth decay, especially in large-scale surveys. He soon confirmed these findings with his own research, and he also found that unsightly dental fluorosis had increased far more with fluoridation than expected.

He challenged the New Zealand Department of Health to recognize this new evidence and stop fluoridation. Instead, he was ordered to cease open opposition or resign from office. But knowing the undeniable truth of what he and others had found, Dr Colquhoun followed his conscience and took early retirement at considerable financial loss rather than continue to deceive the public, whose best interests he had sworn to serve.

During the next few years, Dr Colquhoun ably continued his research and also earned a Ph.D. in 1987 at age 63 from the University of Auckland on the history and promotion of fluoridation in New Zealand. In 1991 he generously took on the demanding but unsalaried job of editing and publishing this Journal. So well did he perform this task that Fluoride quickly grew in quality and renown as he broadened and strengthened its scope and contents.

Over the years I saw what a great honor and privilege it was to work closely with Dr Colquhoun in helping him edit and publish Fluoride. As a person who saw all too clearly how vitally important it is to follow the path of truth, even when others would not, Dr Colquhoun was a model of honesty and fairness in dealing with the many challenges confronting him as an editor. For all this and much else, we owe him more than we can ever repay.

Review of fluoridation planned in the United Kingdom

April 13, 1999

The Ministry of Health will order a review of the health effects of fluoride. Lord Baldwin, an opponent of fluoridation, welcomed the review, but would prefer a public inquiry so that the ethics of mass fluoridation could also be examined. In a separate study of diet and nutrition, fluoride in urine will be measured. Lord Baldwin said that this reflects a concession that not enough is known about the total consumption of fluoride to determine whether fluoride should be added to water. The decision of whether or not to support nationwide fluoridation will be postponed until the review of health effects is completed in about two years.

The Water Fluoridation Act of 1985 made the water companies responsible for deciding whether to fluoridate. The water companies are afraid of possible legal action and would rather have the health authorities decide. Scientific studies have reported that fluoride can cause depression of the immune system, impairment of IQ, increased risk of hip fractures, bone cancer and gastrointestinal disorders.

About 5.5 million people, 10 per cent of the population, live in areas with fluoridated water. The West Midlands and the North-East are the most fluoridated regions in the UK.

-- from "The Sunday Telegraph", 14 March 1999

California water boards reject state fluoridation plan

April 9, 1999

In separate actions, three California water boards and a city council voted to reject the state's mandated fluoridation plan.

On April 6, the Board of Directors of Lakeside Water District, which services customers in east San Diego county, voted unanimously to pass a resolution to oppose the addition of fluoride to their water system and, mirroring the City of La Mesa's resolution of March 9, requested that Helix Water District, which wholesales the water that Lakeside ultimately receives and delivers, ensure, "...That every means available and necessary is used to vigorously oppose putting fluoride in the water supply."

By a majority vote, at its meeting on March 24, 1999, the Riverview Board of Directors, which also receives wholesaled water from Helix through Padre Dam, supported Helix's decision to reject a fluoridation grant, citing, "...(T)here is certainly a lack of evidence at this time to support the fluoridation of the area's water supply."

In an afternoon meeting on April 7, Helix Water District, which is ranked No. 1 on the State's fluoridation priority list, formalized their previous Board action of March 17, 1999 in the form of a resolution. The resolution cites the complexity of controlling the dosage delivered to Helix customers and wholesale recipients when blended with other waters, the health concerns for individuals who have negative physical reactions to fluoride while fluoride is readily available from other sources, Helix's central mission and focus to deliver pure water to its customers, and sister agencies' objections to fluoridation.

The resolution calls for a request that funding for fluoridation of Helix's water be withheld, that the State immediately reconsider Helix's position on the fluoridation priority list, and that the State reconsider its approach to mandating Helix to fluoridate rather than the Metropolitan Water District.

The proponents of fluoridation made a lengthy presentation describing their opinion of the benefits of fluoridation; however, the statement delivered by David Nelson, a fluoridation consultant for the State, received the most attention from the Board.

Nelson stated that he did not want the Helix Board to think that he was threatening them, or that he wanted to force Helix into fluoridating, but that his task force would be issuing a grant to Helix to fluoridate and that there were procedures that included fines and writs (court orders).

Harold Ball, a previous school principal and Mayor, with more than 20 years as Director on the Helix Water Board, scolded the proponents of fluoridation for attempting to characterize individuals who question the safety of fluoride as quacks by stating that he had done his own investigation, citing text books that described the aggressive electron-seeking nature of fluoride and its affinity for bone, as well as studies linking fluoridation to a higher incidence of hip fracture published in such journals as the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Ball expressed his frustration by Nelson's edict, stating that he had taken an oath to vote his conscience for the betterment of those customers he served, and that he resented that Nelson was telling the Helix Board that their determination didn't matter, as it would be preempted.

Helix President Barbara Barber summed up Board Members' comments by stating that a review would show that each of them had expressed themselves as being basically pro-fluoride, but that Helix had historically concluded that it was not appropriate to use the water system to dispense fluoride, especially when fluoride can be made available by other means, and that no new information had come to the Board that supported changing that conclusion. The resolution was passed with a 5-0 vote.

The momentous importance of another item on the agenda, in which the Board of Directors made the decision to develop an amendment to a construction contract for treatment plant upgrade and expansion, to include the construction of facilities for ozonation, appeared to be lost on the crowd of supporters advocating the addition of another contaminant. Utilizing ozonation rather than chlorine as a first stage disinfectant is expected to drastically reduce the amount of chemicals added, and is estimated to reduce the presence of trihalomethanes by approximately 75%.

On the evening of April 7, the City of Escondido, which is No. 4 on the State's fluoridation priority list, ratified an ordinance that prohibits the addition of any substance to the water, including fluoride, that is intended to treat humans, rather than improve the drinkability of the water.

"I wasn't elected to sit idly by, or to provide political cover, for state legislators that rubber-stamp industry's attempt to recycle hazardous waste by dumping it into our drinking water," said Escondido Council Member Keith Beier.

"Our water department calculates that we would be buying more than 33 tons of a substance that can't be given to us for free because it is classified as a toxic hazardous waste; yet, we are supposed to accept that, if we pay $0.35 per gallon and they slap a new label on the container, this same toxic waste can be shipped to us untreated, directly from the scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry that they use to keep fluorine from becoming airborne and killing everything in sight, and that on the truck-ride here it will magically be converted to a safe and desirable nutrient. The kicker to this scheme is that the amount intended for the targeted children is only 16 pounds of that 33 tons."

by Jeff Green, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, 2425 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101, (800) 728-3833

Los Angeles Citizens for Safe Drinking Water files lawsuit to stop fluoridation of Los Angeles, California

March 28, 1999

Los Angeles Citizens for Safe Drinking Water files lawsuit to stop fluoridation of Los Angeles, California

Los Angeles Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and eight of its members took legal steps on March 22, 1999 to stop fluoridation of the city's public water supplies.

The Complaint for Validation and Injunctive Relief filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against the Los Angeles City Council and the Department of Water and Power cited more than 20 separate causes of action.

"The City Council has to once again be reminded that the people of Los Angeles have already spoken on this matter," said Paul Borraccia, a local spokesperson for Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. "In 1975, after our city council made the same mistake of attempting to take the decision about what we eat and drink out of the hands of the people, 213,000 voters in a citywide referendum rose up and said by a wide margin that we are just not going to convert our public water supply into a mass medication system, or a dumping ground for hazardous waste."

The lawsuit charges that the defendants failed to give sufficient notice regarding the dangers of fluoridation, the total contents of the substance hydrofluosilicic acid to be added to the water, and the availability of less intrusive alternatives.

"This isn't just a simple case of a difference of opinion about public policy," said Michael Delaney, another plaintiff and spokesperson for the group. "The City Council and DWP have a fluoridation agenda that can't stand up to public or scientific scrutiny. So a report ordered by the Council in November 1995 regarding the funding, implementation schedule, and health hazards for fluoridating was not delivered by the DWP on January 23, 1996 as ordered. The safety reports that were completed by the DWP on December 7, 1997 were not made available to the Council until January 15, 1999, after the chemical contract was already approved by the subcommittee and up in front of the full Council for a vote. The safety report was withheld from the public until January 22, 1999, three days after the final vote and the chemical contract was approved, so that there could be no opportunity for informed and meaningful commentary.

"The reports failed to review any scientific data regarding hydrofluosilicic acid, the specific substance they are intent on adding to our water, which includes numerous toxic chemicals listed under Proposition 65."

The request for injunction charges that the defendants failed to review and consider new medical and scientific safety data that contradicts the data that was available to the State Legislature in 1995 when they passed the unfunded AB733 calling for fluoridation of water systems with more than 10,000 connections.

Policy recommendations for controlled dosage drops and tablets, which are intended to substitute for fluoridated water in non fluoridated communities, were revised downward in 1995 by the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics due to fluoride exposure from all other sources, with the result that mass delivery of the "optimal" amount of fluoride in the water would exceed what any professional in the country could ethically prescribe in controlled doses for a child under 6 years of age, even after individual evaluation.

The lawsuit further charges that the defendants fluoridation plan discriminates against minorities, lower income, the ill, uninsured, children, elderly, and other disadvantaged persons, and that the defendants failed to evaluate the likelihood of fluoride causing brain damage and lower IQ in children.

"The City Council has tried to use the State law for political cover, claiming that they are just abiding with State law and that the ratepayers and taxpayers would never be effected, when in fact the Council is acting entirely on their own and spending millions of dollars from the DWP general fund," said Delaney.

Individual plaintiffs will be attending the regularly scheduled City Council meeting at 10:00 A.M. to personally assure at the public comment period that the Council is informed directly of the causes of action filed. They will be available for further comment to the press at that time.

by Jeff Green, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, 2425 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110, (800) 728-3833

Los Angeles Citizens For Safe Drinking Water, P.O. Box 55335, Sherman Oaks, CA 91413, (818) 780-3833 -- Paul Borraccia


Escondido, California passes ordinance to prohibit fluoridation

March 25, 1999

The City of Escondido, which is listed fourth on California's fluoridation priority list, took a stand yesterday to protect their citizens against the State's plan to fluoridate their public water.

Following more than 40 speakers, and at times contentious discussion between Councilmembers, the City Council passed an ordinance that prohibits the addition of any substance to the water, including fluoride, that is intended to treat humans, rather than improve the drinkability of water.

While promoters of converting the water supply to a delivery system for fluoride contended that there was no evidence to show that any harm to individuals had ever come from "optimal" levels of fluoride in the water, Councilmember Keith Beier questioned whether health professionals endorsed the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) revised policy recommendations for controlled dosage drops and tablets that are used as a substitute for fluoridated water in non fluoridated communities.

The revised policy recommendation was published by the AAP and the American Dental Association (ADA) in 1995 in order to reduce the risk of fluoride poisoning to children from over-exposure to fluoride from all sources, not just the water. The AAP and ADA schedules show that infants should have no further exposure to fluoride even if there is no fluoride in their drinking water.

Councilmember Beier further questioned why professionals were required to evaluate a child's weight, growth and development, unusual susceptibility, and total exposure to fluoride from all sources before being able to prescribe even 1/4 of what that child is expected to receive in the water. Beier noted that the amount of fluoride the State was intending to put in the water exceeded the amount that any health professional could ethically prescribe to a child under 6 years of age.

Supporters of the ordinance displayed sodas, fruit juices, white grape juice, baby foods, and cereals bought from their neighborhood stores that contain up to 6 times the amount of fluoride intended for their water, yet contain no labeling so that parents could limit their children's intake.

David Nelson, the fluoridation consultant for the state Department of Health and Human Services, offered the State's opinion that the ordinance would not prevail against the State.

In an aggressive tone, Nelson indicated that they had no intent at this time to force fluoride down the city's throat, but that they certainly had the power to do so, and that it might come to that.

Nelson contended that the determination of which communities were to be fluoridated, and how a $10 million grant from California Endowment for implementation of fluoridation is spent, was his agency's own internal decision, and that they might just skip around the priority list and provide funds to Cities that want to fluoridate.

In what some audience members could only imagine was a mis-statement, although uncorrected, Nelson additionally stated that if the City did not pass the ordinance, and accepted $10 million, the city could sit back and let the State's legal department and the Health and Human Services fight the lawsuits that would come up.

A contentious moment of the meeting occurred in response to Beier's statement that, after his listening to hours of discrepancies between the fluoridation proponents' own facts and representations, and the recognition that the substance to be added to the water was an industrial hazardous waste, he was trying to determine what was driving the ADA and others to push so hard. Referring to the millions of dollars paid to the ADA for the endorsement of fluoride products, Beier suggested that one should just, "follow the money."

Escondido's stance against the State's plan to fluoridate was one of several that took place during the month of March.

On March 2, the voters in Santa Cruz affirmed a March 1998 ordinance passed by the city council that prohibited fluoridation without a vote of the people, and expanded the ordinance to include prohibition of any substance intended to affect the physical or mental functions of persons consuming the water.

On March 9, the City of La Mesa voted unanimously to pass a resolution supporting the prohibition of fluoridation, and requested that Helix Water District, which supplies water to their city, ensure, "...That every means available and necessary is used to vigorously oppose putting fluoride in the water supply."

On March 17, Helix Water District, listed as No. 1 on the State's fluoridation priority list, directed their staff to advise the California Department of Health and Human Services, a fluoridation task force coalition, and the other water agencies and communities that they service, that Helix will reject any grant offered them that would require that they add fluoride to their water.

On March 22, members of the Los Angeles chapter of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water filed a lawsuit containing more than 20 causes of action against the Los Angeles City Council and Department of Water and Power, as Los Angeles prepares to fluoridate based on a vote of the City Council. Los Angeles was the last major city in California to allow the people a say, in 1975, which resulted in 213,000 citizens of Los Angeles voting to reject the 1974 City Council's decision to fluoridate.

by Jeff Green, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, 2425 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101, (800) 728-3833

How the toothpaste companies contribute to the dental fluorosis epidemic

February 24, 1999

One toothpaste company has been caught importing double strength fluoride toothpaste into the U.S. illegally. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a revised import alert, dated May 1, 1997 which placed Colgate fluoride toothpaste products from Canada and Mexico on detention without physical examination. This notice was pasted on the Web at www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia6301.html. The FDA document is reprinted here. The toothpaste from Canada contained cyclamates, which are not permitted in toothpaste in the U.S. The toothpaste from Mexico contained two fluoride ingredients instead of one. This is not the first time that toothpaste manufactured in countries with less stringent regulations have been imported into the U.S. Toothpaste imports have been detained by the FDA because of excessive fluoride levels even before the Colgate incident.

Some of this toothpaste with excessive fluoride has come from England in the past. In 1996, a class action lawsuit was filed against Colgat-Palmolive in the United Kingdom. The parents of more than 200 children charged that their children's teeth been damaged by Colgate toothpaste. See Dental fluorosis is cause of legal action.

In June, 1997, the FDA began requiring a more explicit warning label on fluoride toothpaste. The new labels warn that children under 6 could easily get fluoride poisoning if they are not supervised. See FDA requires additional warning on toothpaste labels. In the year before the new warning label, 5,442 toothpaste related calls were made to poison control centers. In the year after the new warning label, 12,855 toothpaste related calls were made to poison control centers. See Consumer awareness of fluoride toothpaste hazard increases.

Dental fluorosis has become widespread in the U.S. and other developed countries even when the fluoride in the toothpaste was not known to be excessive. A survey of children in Norway revealed that 87% had at least some dental fluorosis. The more they used fluoride toothpaste and the earlier they started using it, the more dental fluorosis they had. Water is not fluoridated in Norway. 95% of the population uses fluoride toothpaste. There can be little doubt that fluoride toothpaste is the cause of the epidemic of dental fluorosis.

In a recent message to sci.med.dentistry, Ulf Bengtsson calls attention to what appears to be a conflict of interest in the financing of dentistry research by dental products companies. Unilever is sponsoring the Dental Faculty website at www.dentalfaculty.org/menu.htm. Unilever represents this as an independent site where scientists should not discuss or advertize commercial products. Unilever reserves the right to advertize its own products. Click on the Unilever Research button and you will see a world map of many well known brands of toothpaste which are owned by Unilever. This is typical of the way dental research is influenced by the dental products companies. For details on the organizational amalgamation of the dental and industrial communities, see Ulf Bengstsson's The symbiosis between the dental and industrial communities and their scientific journals.

For those who would like to express their views to the toothpaste companies, see How to contact toothpaste companies.

Computer controlled fluoridation systems could malfunction in year 2000

January 22, 1999

When fluoride is added to municipal water systems, its concentration in the water has to be carefully controlled to prevent outbreaks of fluoride poisoning. Over the years, there have been incidents where malfunctioning equipment resulted in fluoride overfeeds which resulted in death or serious illness. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1994 reported such an incident in Hooper Bay, Alaska.

Now, there is concern about what might happen to computer controlled water quality monitoring in the year 2000. Senator Bennett (R-Utah) told a story about what happened at a water purification plant in Utah. The story was reported in the Salt Lake Tribune, on January 18:

"Curious about what would happen when the new millennium ticks in, a water-purification plant in Utah set its clocks ahead to Jan. 1, 2000. With computers ill-equipped to handle the new date, the plant malfunctioned, dumping poisonous quantities of chlorine and other chemicals into the water."

Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM recommends that cities and municipalities disconnect water fluoridation equipment during the Y2K rollover to prevent possible fluoride fatalities.

Was sarin used by Americans in the Vietnam War?

January 6, 1999

Sarin is a nerve gas. Sarin contains phosphonofluoride. A news report on CNN in June, 1998 raised a controversy about whether sarin was used in Laos during the Vietnam War. Now read what a witness from the Vietnam War says.

Copyright © 2002 Daniel A. Montgomery