Fluoridation News 1999

UK Government review of fluoridation goes online amid controversy

November 5, 1999

At the request of the Government, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, is conducting a review of fluoridation.

The official website for the review, "Fluoridation of Drinking Water: a Systematic Review of its Efficacy and Safety," is at www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm.

The review will investigate whether or not fluoridation is effective and may additionally investigate the toxicity of artificial fluorides. The Centre is core funded by the National Health Service's R & D division, and the fluoridation review is funded by the R & D division of the Department of Health.

Naturally, those who follow the fluoridation debate will want to know whether this review is really going to be unbiased.

In a recent letter to an enquirer, Dr. Kleijnen, the director of the Centre, stated:

However, our Centre is part of the University of York, it is a scientific unit, which works independently. We never bow for any pressure towards certain conclusions, because inevitably that will ruin the Centre's prestige, which is high both nationally and internationally. Our output is based on scientifically valid systematic reviews. Nobody in our Centre has been involved in the fluoridation debate / issue before. Other members from the review group (in Wales) have been involved in fluoridation issues, however, they are involved to support the York team in terms of quality control, and they make no unique contributions to the review. You can get information about our team, advisory board, progress and minutes from the advisory board meetings from our Web pages: www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm

The advisory committee is there to advise the review team, not to decide or veto. There will be no vote in the end, and as far as we are concerned everyone can draw their own conclusions based on our review. The membership involves both proponents and opponents of fluoridation as well as neutral people.

We will consider all relevant material, from all countries and all languages (I'm Dutch and can read Moolenburg's work). You rightly assume that people can check reasons for rejection in our final report, and we are open to answer any queries.

On politics versus science I can say our Centre has quite a lot of experience, going as far as threatening to close the Centre if we could not publish our findings. As you say, our reputation depends on it and, frankly, being independent is for many of us the very reason to be at a university. We could earn considerably more money working either directly for the government or in industry.

The National Pure Water Association (NWPA) opposes fluoridation in the UK. Peter Mansfield, M.D., President of NWPA, is on the advisory committee of the fluoridation review. He answered my questions about the review by e-mail:

Editor: Do you expect the review to be unbiased?

Dr. Mansfield: The Review itself is being conducted within the culture of the Cochrane Collaboration, a group of scientists represented in many countries but originating in England and strongest in Europe, who set out to establish medicine on the basis of rigorous evidence. The terms "effectiveness", "efficiency" and "evidence-based medicine" are just a few that originate in this culture. The UK Cochrane Centre is publicly funded but jealous of its reputation for independence. Jos Kleijnen, in charge of the York-based NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, is one of very few whose entire career has been spent conducting independent reviews. He seems to me to be clear-headed, even-handed and apolitical. So yes, I expect the actual review to be unbiased, which will be a world first.

Editor: Some people think it is bad faith of the Government to continue promoting fluoridation while the review is in progress. Do you share that view?

Dr. Mansfield: Of course, but they are in a very difficult position of their own making. They say that no evidence has been brought to them that they judge strong enough in itself to halt their fluoridation programme. They are expecting that their views will be endorsed by this review, which is by no means certain. What has happened, without official comment, is that new fluoridation schemes in England are suspended pending the outcome of the review, because if it is favourable to fluoridation the law will change to make it much easier to fluoridate against the run of public opinion. Why waste effort now? It's not the same in Scotland, where there seems to be political pressure on to fluoridate water in advance of the review. My own opinion, of course, is that fluoridation should have been stopped years ago, at least when the evidence on hip fracture came to light. Government advisers have pressed the opposite view successfully on at least three successive governments, until we starting arguing hard with them about three years ago. This Review is their concession to the strength of our case.

Editor: Is there agreement between advisors such as yourself and the review committee on the protocol for judging what weight should be given to the various items of scientific evidence?

Dr. Mansfield: Yes, totally. Evidence of toxicity faces less strict admission criteria for acceptance to the review, and less rigorous quality criteria in judging its worth. Roughly half the evidence being sent for (the current list on the website) is critical of fluoridation, and most of the key critics are represented. The review team's experience is that reviews work best and stand up longest if sharply focussed (in this case water fluoridation alone, and primary human data alone), but that the evidence from this narrow systematic review process must then be taken in the context of systematic reviews of other necessary evidence (in this case relating to other sources of fluoride exposure; fluoride toxicity in various organ systems such as skeleton, thyroid, nervous system; fluoride pharmacodynamics;hypersensitivity etc). The totality of that evidence is the "Evidence on the Effects of Care" which has then to be weighed politically against Needs, Resources and Priorities to reach a policy decision. There is concern that, once the review reports, other necessary evidence will not be adequately considered by politicians. It is also possible that insufficient evidence of benefit to teeth will be found, in which event the toxicity evidence may not even be considered. Both these concerns are, however, political and we have been pressing the organisations with whom we are in touch to contend with the government over them.

Jane Jones, the Campaign Director of NPWA, is less optimistic. In an e-mail to this editor, she stated:

Dr Mansfield is giving his own opinions in this reply. Although he is the President of the NPWA he does not have a mandate to represent the Association - he is there as himself. Along with many of our members, I do not share his optimism. The individuals to whom Peter copied his response are Jos Kleijnen, the director of the NHSCRD at York and Trevor Sheldon, the Chairman of the review. Dan, please access the website of Andreas Schuld, (Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children) who engaged the York review - and each member of the advisory and the review panels - in a series of very pertinent emails. All are posted on Andreas' site. The fact that the protocol for this review has been further narrowed as a result of his submissions is deeply worrying.

The section of the Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children website where you can find a copy of these communications is at www.bruha.com/fluoride/html/conversation_with_uk.htm. Andreas Schuld has contacted members of the review committee to request that additional research papers be included. He is particularly concerned that the review will be too narrow. He would like to include more evidence of the toxicity of fluoride and include studies of the total amount of fluoride from all sources, including diet.

Dr. Mansfield answered Andreas Schuld by e-mail, October 4, 1999:

I can see that a review has to be as precisely targeted as possible, to ever get finished. I too presented evidence that has been excluded from the present criteria, but is waiting in the wings, like yours, in case sufficient evidence of dental fluoride effect is found to proceed to toxicity considerations. This is not a foregone conclusion.

Your evidence on tea is also one of the "other necessary evidence" categories I referred to before, that must be taken into account when making use of the finished result of a precisely targetted review. Ensuring that this other evidence IS noted by the politicians is a political task, not a scientific one. Our Health Ministers do need to be reminded of that and I'm sure you will add your voice to many others from within the UK.


Jane Jones, in another e-mail to this editor, affirms that the majority of the NPWA executive committee share her pessimism. Noting that the NPWA has to pay for its own campaigns against fluoridation, she states,

". . . the government has funded the British Fluoridation Society (dentists!) to promote it. I take a hard line on this. One does not go to bed with the enemy. We have no reason to trust them - quite the reverse - and their dirty dealings are equally as bad as those everywhere else. . . . We are extremely grateful to Andreas Schuld for his excellent contribution to the battle of York and his success in getting them to admit that the protocol has been further narrowed. I am trying every means to get the media to take this up so that the thing can be exposed before they are due to report - in February.

In an e-mail to Andreas Schuld, October 1, 1999, Dr. Mansfield stated:

There has, not surprisingly, been considerable anxiety over this review amongst opponents of fluoridation. I was as anxious as any - until I met Jos and his team, saw how they are working and took their track record on board.

This really is a new situation - the first systematic, quasi-judicial review of the science world-wide. The protocol restrictions have worked for the opponents more than against us - the initial list of papers was overwhelming "pro", and now is 50-50. Matthew and Jos are wide open to discussion and well aware of their responsibilities. I see no sign of political fear or favour in their process.

All of us are aware, of course, that their work can be politically abused. In the first place, by over-rigid admission criteria, and in the second place by taking the report on its own, without reference to relevant evidence surrounding the subject (such as yours). WE NEED ASSISTANCE FROM ALL POLITICAL PRESSURE GROUPS TO ENSURE THESE TWO ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE. I urge you to reinforce my own pleas to all our friends to redirect their attention to the politics, and trust the review process a little more.


If all goes as planned, the scientific review will be unbiased, but we do not know how readily the political powers that be will accept the results.

Update on fluoridation in Clark County, Nevada

October 20, 1999

Fluoridation is on the agenda for Clark County, but Governor Kenney Guinn hasn't said when. Mary Stern has kept the Governor informed about probable consequences of fluoridation. She shows in her latest letter that there is uncertainty over when fluoridation will actually start. Her letter to Governor Guinn is reprinted below.

One way of knowing for sure if water is fluoridated is to hire a chemistry lab to test a sample from your water tap. A typical cost is $20. Another way to find out if a glass of water is good for you is to do muscle testing. Books by John Diamond, M.D. explain how to do this. His most famous book is Your Body Doesn't Lie. The subject is also known as biokinesiology. Muscle testing is non-specific. Silicofluorides are only some of the chemicals that can get into water and do you harm.

October 18, 1999

Governor Kenny Guinn
Office of the Governor
State of Nevada
Carson City, NV 89701-4747

Dear Gov. Guinn:


On September 7 of this year an employee from the Henderson water plant phoned me with the information that they were going to start the fluoride feed on the first of January, 2000, ten months prior to a note of the people on the issue scheduled for the November, 2000 election.

I then sat down and wrote you my third or fourth letter (I have lost count) on the dangers of starting the fluoride dumping to coincide with the Y2K computer rollover and its possible consequences.

The Southern Nevada Water Authority, the main treatment plant at Lake Mead, services Las Vegas, N. Las Vegas, Boulder City, the Green Valley section of Henderson and the unincorporated areas of Clark County.

The Henderson water treatment plant services most of the remaining sections of the City of Henderson.

On September 24, I called both water plants to find out what they were doing at the time and learned they had instead decided to implement the fluoride around the last of the month of October, 1999. In fact, the employee at the Henderson water plant said they were beginning to tear up the floorboards over there getting ready for the fluoride equipment.

So that I could be prepared here at home with my new water distillation unit in order to strain out the rat poison, I again called both water plants on October 14 for the current status and found TO MY SURPRISE that the FLUORIDE FEED HAS BEEN CALLED OFF UNTIL MARCH 1 OF THE YEAR 2000.

I asked them at the main water plant why the fluoridation would not be implemented until 3/1/2000 and was told that the State was slow in getting the rules and regulations to them aat this time. THEN WHY WERE THE FLOORBOARDS BEING TORN UP IN SEPTEMBER, 1999? THIS WHOLE FLUORIDE MESS HAS A PECULIAR ODOR OF CRAWFISHING.

My opinion is that YOU finally woke up to the danger of the possible Y2K computer problem and sent WORD to call off the "fluoride dogs" until 3/1/2000.





Passage of Disastrous Fluoride Bill (Rat Poison)
By Nevada State Legislature
and Signature by Governor
How to Protect Yourself Against
Poisoned water in Clark County

I have spent months and months in research and saved every news-clipping on this dastardly legislation. In my paper, I show step by step what happened in the Nevada State Legislature, who voted for the fluoride, who voted against it, what was said and when.




Although the Voters have approved a plan to build wetlands in Las Vegas Wash which is supposed to aid in its clean up --- according to biologist Larry Paulson, we still have the same volatile situation in which "all of that (sewage) water enters Lake Mead just six miles upstream of the Southern Nevada Water Authority's drinking water intakes at Saddle Island."

Lake Mead is Southern Nevada's primary drinking water supply, so we are drinking our own sewage. It appears to me then that the people of Clark County will be drinking the same fluoridated water over and over and over again.

Why will the employees in their goggles and toxic-protective suits there at the water plants be adding more fluoride at each so-called specified interval, when the water will already be full of the fluoride, as well as all of the other impurities that are already in the water? It doesn't make sense to me. WHAT A WAY TO GO! I THINK THE STATE OFFICIALS IN CARSON CITY NEED TO HAVE THEIR HEADS EXAMINED.

Mary L. Stern
56 Megan Drive
Henderson, NV 89014

Philip Heggen, webmaster of Stop Fluoridation USA, dies

October 18, 1999

STOP Fluoridation USA http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride is the web site born of the spirit of Philip M. Heggen, who passed away recently ... suddenly ... and in all meaningful respects; in his prime at 70. As those who knew him will attest, Phil had the curiosity of a child, the wisdom and tolerance of a saint, the strength and stamina of a 25-year old construction worker. He was absolutely committed to the fight to STOP fluoridation. He will be sorely missed. Phil's web site is currently being paid for by a volunteer who chooses to remain anonymous. The total cost is $19.95 per month, payable to the ISP. http://www.rvi.net/ The fee has been paid to the end of November, 1999. Volunteers are invited to help move that date forward. Inquiries may be directed to Darlene Sherrell, darlene@caribsurf.com. Her web site is at www.ia4u.net/~sherrell/

Fluorosilicates increase the incidence of heavy metal crimes

October 16, 1999

A study published last month in the International Journal of Environmental Studies, and led by Roger Masters, an emeritus professor of government at Dartmouth, describes how silicofluorides which are added to public water systems cause leaching of heavy metals from old metal water pipes. Although building codes have changed, there are still many older homes with plumbing that contains impurities of lead, cadmium and manganese. The dangers of lead poisoning have been known for years, but substantial numbers of children continue to suffer from blood lead above the danger level of 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood (10g/dL). Excessive manganese can cause loss of impulse control and violent behavior like lead does.

Analyzing a survey of over 280,000 Massachusetts children, the investigators found that silicofluorides - chemicals widely used in treating public water supplies - are associated with an increase in children's absorption of lead. The research team included Myron J. Coplan, retired Vice President of Albany International and principal of Intellequity, Natick, Mass., and Brian T. Hone, research associate at Dartmouth College. In their analysis, the investigators found that levels of lead in children's blood was significantly higher in Massachusetts communities using the silicofluorides fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride than in towns where water is treated with sodium fluoride or not fluoridated at all. Compared to a matched group of 30 towns that do not use silicofluorides, children in 30 communities that use these chemicals were over twice as likely to have over 10g/dL of blood lead.

"Silicofluorides are largely untested," said Professor Masters, who pointed out that over 90 percent of America's fluoridated drinking water supplies are treated with silicofluorides. In contrast to sodium fluoride, the silicofluorides are acids. Because they dissociate slowly, they continue to make water more acidic after they have left the monitoring station at the water treatment plant. "Virtually all research on fluoridation safety has focused on sodium fluoride, even though the studies in the 1930s showed important biological differences between these chemicals. The correlation with blood levels is especially serious because lead poisoning is associated with higher rates of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, substance abuse and crime."

Since completing the Massachusetts study, the investigators have analyzed data from rural counties in six additional states as well as in the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III). The results find a correlation between silicofluorides and blood lead levels, as well as higher rates of violent crime and substance abuse.

Dr. Masters summarized these findings in a plenary lecture at a meeting of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences in Atlanta, Georgia in September, 1999. He stated, "Environmental pollution and dangerous water treatment procedures are human activities whose results are both economically costly and morally unjust. Innocent children should not be poisoned by public water supplies."

The research was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training and by the Earhart Foundation, which integrates scientific discoveries in neuroscience, environmental chemistry, and human behavior.

Ken Calvert, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Science, requested answers from EPA Administrator, Carol Browner. The EPA written response maintained that there is no conclusive evidence that silicofluorides are unsafe.

The EPA union of professionals disagrees with the conclusions of the top EPA administrators. EPA scientists have examined the scientific evidence and found that fluoridation is an unsafe practice. News of EPA union activity is online at ZeroWasteAmerica, www.zerowasteamerica.org/Fluoride.htm#EPAunion.

The EPA evades acknowledgement of the fact that various government agencies have dragged their feet for years on financing the necessary scientific research that would clarify how safe or how dangerous the silicofluorides are. The EPA relies upon incompetent evidence of presumed safety and suggests that more research is necessary before silicofluorides can be recognized as harmful to human health.

We read about sensational mass murders. People clamor for stricter laws and more vigilant security in high schools. Analysis of hair samples shows that the accumulation of heavy metals typically leads to violent rage.

Roger D. Masters is Nelson D. Rockefeller Professor Emeritus in the Dartmouth College Department of Government. He heads the Dartmouth Foundation for Neuroscience and Society. For several decades he has researched the causes of violence and other dysfunctional human behavior such as ADD, ADHD and drug abuse. His viewpoint, which has been published widely, is that toxins in the environment have subtle effects on brain and neural functions which are, ultimately, manifested in behaviors which many social scientists and politicians attribute to social dynamics.

Myron J. Coplan is retired Vice President of Albany International Corp., a registered Professional Chemical Engineer and a private consultant in chemical engineering at Intellequity. His fields include water chemistry and the treatment of water and wastewater via membranes. He has consulted to the phosphate fertilizer industry and has first-hand knowledge of processes bearing on the production of fluoridating agents.

A packet of information is available. Contact Dr. Masters' secretary at: Suzanne.Saxton@Dartmouth.edu. Dr. Masters can be reached at 603/646-1029 or Roger.D.Masters@Dartmouth.edu. The packet includes reprints of:

Nevada will vote on fluoridation in November, 2000

September 10, 1999

The 1999 Nevada Legislature passed a bill that would require Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, to fluoridate their water. Governor Kenny Guinn said he would not sign the bill unless it allowed the people to vote on fluoridation at the next election. The new law does not specify when fluoridation would start. According to Governor Guinn's press secretary, the Governor would rather let local government make this kind of decision.

Mary Stern gives the details:

The Governor signed AB 284, the fluoridation mandate, with the stipulation that the matter would go to a vote of the people in the 2000 general election for them to decide if they wished to continue fluoridation.

Before the passage and signature of AB 284, I had written letters to all 63 members of the State Legislature, both Assemblypersons and State Senators and also to the Governor outlining the dangers of the fluoridation of water.

Other opponents had personally appeared at hearings that were held in Carson City (State Capitol) before the bill was voted on, but the majority of the members of the State Legislature in both houses went ahead and passed the mandatory measure.

What the Governor had evidently originally planned after he signed the bill was that the fluoride would already be in the water system by the time that the general election in November, 2000 would be held, hence the news reports that we would be allowed to vote whether or not to continue fluoridation.

Well, after the legislation became law, but before they had time to implement it, I began to contemplate the very extreme danger we would all be in here if the fluoride was being placed in the water system before the Y2K rollover on January 1, 2000.

So, I wrote another letter to the Governor and sent copies to the leaders in the Assembly and State Senate and also to the two leading newspaper editors here in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Reno Gazette-Journal.

I again outlined the dangers of the fluoridation, but this time asked them if they planned to "poison us a little at a time or all at once on 1/1/2000 in case the computers malfunctioned."

That letter of mine must have hit a nerve (maybe other people wrote to them too, I don't know). Anyway, about a week later, the Governor issued an ultimatum stating that the people would be allowed to vote on the fluoridation issue in the general election in November, 2000 before the fluoride was added to the water system.

At the same time that this news story broke on June 21, 1999, a reporter from the Las Vegas Review-Journal interviewed a Bob Hall of the Nevada Environmental Coalition who said he plans to file a lawsuit to block fluoridation altogether. Said he: "There's no question we are going to move to prevent this from happening."

Still unresolved is whether fluoridation equipment should be purchased and regulations written before the November voting. In a letter to the Governor, June 27, 1999, Mary Stern stated, ". . . it seems to me that any fluoridation equipment purchase could also be foolhardy and result in a huge waste of taxpayer money."

Information for this article is from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, June 21, 1999 and Mary Stern, letter to the editor, July 5, 1999.

Mary and Alan Stern live at 56 Megan Drive, Henderson, NV 89014

ALCOA fined $1,000,000 for not reporting fluoride exports

September 9, 1999

The Federal Register, August 5, 1999, reports that ALCOA was fined $1,000,000 for not reporting exports of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride. The exports were made to Suriname and Jamaica. Fluoride can be used in making chemical weapons such as the nerve gas, sarin. Anhydrous hydrogen fluoride is used for purifying uranium 238 for making atomic bombs. The leftover uranium hexafluoride is also known as spent uranium. Extra heavy artillery shells for piercing tanks and other armored military vehicles are made with spent uranium.

The U.S. controls the export of fluoride compounds which could be used for making chemical or nuclear weapons. Last year, the U.S. pressured China to give up plans to sell anhydrous hydrogen fluoride to Iran. (The Oregonian, March 13, 1998, p. A1).

In this case, the unreported exports of fluoride to Suriname and Jamaica were not used for making weapons, but the Government was deprived of information about it. Below is the complete text of the decision against ALCOA published in the Federal Register.

[Federal Register: August 5, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 150)] [Notices] [Page 42641-42651] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05au99-47] ALCOA has been fined $1,000,000 for committing 100 violations of the Export Administration Regulations (``EAR'') between 1991 and 1995.
CHARGES 1-50: On 50 separate occasions between June 14, 1991, and December 7, 1995, ALCOA exported potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride from the United States to Jamaica and Suriniam, without obtaining from BXA the validated export licenses required by Section 772.1(b) of the former regulations. By exporting U.S.--origin commodities to any person or to any destination in violation of or contrary to the provisions of the Act or any regulation, order, or license issued thereunder, ALCOA violated Section 7878.6 of the former Regulations on 50 separate occasions, for a total of 50 violations. CHARGES 51-100: In connection with the exports described in Charges 1-50 above, on 50 separate occasions between June 14, 1991, and December 7, 1995, ALCOA used Shipper's Export Declarations, as defined in Section 770.2 of the former regulations, on which it represented, potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride, qualified for exports from the United States to Jamaica and Surinam under general license G-DEST. These chemicals required a validated license for export from the United States to both of those destinations. During the review period, the water treatment facility in Suriname used sodium fluoride to treat drinking water. Suralco's water treatment facility was located in the powerhouse which supplied electricity to and was located at Suralco's bauxite mine in Moengo, Suriname. In March 1994, Suralco sold its Moengo powerhouse and water treatment facility to Energie Bedrijven Suriname (EBS), a utility company owned by the government of Suriname. In conjunction with the sale of the powerhouse and water treatment facility, Suralco agreed to continue operating the water treatment facility for one year. Consequently, Suralco personnel were on-site at the water treatment facility at all times when ALCOA's Export Supply Division shipped sodium fluoride to Suralco. Also as part of the powerhouse sale agreement, Suralco agreed to provide the chemicals used in the water treatment facility for a period of two years following the sale. Excerpts from the ruling: " Of all the aggravating factors in this case, one is particularly damming--that the Respondent, over a period of four and one-half (4.5) years, made 50 separate exports of potassium fluoride and/or sodium fluoride in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (emphasis added). Importantly, ALCOA is not a new or small company that doesn't understand the foreign export regulatory process. Quite to the contrary, the Respondent is a large multinational corporation which had a separate division (Export Supply Division) specifically dedicated to receiving requisitions, locating suppliers, purchasing products, and shipping the requested items in accordance with applicable export licensing requirements. Thus, ALCOA's conduct, under this backdrop, was flatly inexcusable and the fact that the violations were not intentional or willful is only relevant to the fact that a federal criminal indictment was not handed down. Respondent's failure to comprehend the change in the Federal Register Notice, given the existence of its Export Supply Division, is also particularly troubling. Moreover, the fact that the unlawful shipments consisted of precursors for chemical weapons, regardless of the lack of any potential diversion in these instances, is not something that should be viewed as a technical oversight and is clearly an aggravating factor...." " The Respondent also argues that all of the precursor chemicals were entirely consumed at the refineries of the Respondent's subsidiary companies in Jamaica and Suriname. Once again, ALCOA misses the point. The crucial point here is that the government was deprived of possible vital information in its fight to control terrorism. In other words, if the world-wide export of chemicals/ biological agents were a puzzle being put together by a U.S. Department of Commerce security team, this information constituted 50 pieces of that puzzle that the government did not have. While it turned out that there was no problem, the fact remains that the government did not have the whole picture. Without the whole picture, or in this case, all of the information about precursor chemical exports, catastrophic errors in preventative decision- making could have occurred." " Importantly, the government voluntarily lowered the sanction bar all the way down to the level of an administrative civil penalty in this case. That having been done, the Respondent argues that the government is being harsh and should lower the bar further. In effect, the Respondent is attempting to have the government negotiate with itself. This is wrong. Based upon the detailed discussion set forth above, I find the appropriate sanction for each of these unlawful shipments is $10,000. The Respondent is a huge multi-national corporation. As such, a $10,000 penalty per violation is minuscule for ALCOA who describes itself as ``one of the world's leading producers of aluminum.* * *''. At no time during this proceeding, did ALCOA's counsel raise financial hardships for mitigating any civil penalty. At some point, ALCOA has to stand up and take responsibility for it's gross and long-standing breach of legal duty. Conversely, the United States government must set its civil penalties at a high enough level to insure that large multi- national corporations don't ignore the law and if they get caught, merely consider the fine as a cost of doing business. Accordingly, it is ordered that Aluminum Company of America, having been found by preponderant evidence to have one hundred violations of the Export Administration Regulations, pay a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000 per violation for a total of $1,000,000."
PART 1: Archive-Name: gov/us/fed/nara/fed-register/1999/aug/05/64FR42641A/part1 Posting-number: Volume 64, Issue 150, Page 42641A.

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D. in the news

July 18, 1999

Dr. Mullenix was chair of the toxicology department at Forsyth Dental Research Institute for 11 years. Then she discovered that fluoride is neurotoxic. She was dismissed because she published her research.

The citation is, Mullenix PJ; Denbesten PK; Schunior A; Kernan WJ, "Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats," Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 1995 March-April, 17(2):169-177. The abstract is online.

Dr. Mullenix is a well qualified expert in the field of toxicology:1

DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist by training. She graduated from the Truman State University (Zoology -- magna cum laude). Her Postdoctoral Training was as a Research Fellow, Environmental Medicine, The John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore. In the 1980s, Dr. Mullenix was Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center, a world renowned dental research institution affiliated with the Harvard Medical School. She was invited to start Forsyth's Toxicology Department because of her expertise in neurotoxicology. She is presently a Research Associate in Psychiatry at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Mullenix's academic appointments, professional positions held, teaching experience, awards, honors and many published scientific research articles to her name are numerous.

Dr. Mullenix was not an anti-fluoridationist. She says:

Initially, the fluoride study sparked little interest, and in fact we were quite anxious to move on to something academically more exciting. Using an animal model developed for the study of dental fluorosis, we expected rats drinking fluoride-treated water would behave the same as matching controls. They did not. The scientific literature led us to believe that rats would easily tolerate 175 ppm fluoride in their drinking water. They did not. Reports in the literature indicated that fluoride would not cross the blood brain barrier. But it did. Prenatal exposure to fluoride was not supposed to permanently alter behavioral outcome. It did. Like walking into quicksand, our confidence that brain function was impervious to fluoride was sinking.2

I wasn't too excited about studying fluoride," Mullenix told this reporter, "because, quite frankly, it was 'good for your teeth' and all that, and I thought the studies would be basically just another control and I had no interest in fluoride." However, because it was part of what she was hired to do, she said, and because she had just astounded the institute by achieving the unattainable--securing a grant from the National Cancer Institute to study the neurotoxicity of the treatments used for childhood leukemia--she decided to incorporate the fluoride studies into that research milieu. In fact, Mullenix claimed, "I was in the top four per cent in the country" for such funding. "The institute was tickled pink, but I really had no idea what a quagmire I was getting into." 3

Dr. Mullenix developed an innovative computer pattern recognition system for accurately observing rat behavior:

Five years lapsed before our investigations of fluoride began. The delay was due to time spent on technological improvements, specifically development of a computer pattern recognition system for the objective quantification of behavior in an animal model. In early June of 1986, the Forsyth Dental Center was noted for this achievement in the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Herald, and applications of our research grew. The new technology enabled us to study the clinically recognized neurotoxicity associated with the treatment for childhood leukemia. Simultaneously, we started investigations of fluoride, the "safe and effective" treatment for dental caries.2

Her results show that flouride given to pregnant rats causes the rat version of attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity in the offspring. Furthermore, it was the fluoride component of the leukemia drug, dexamethasone, which causes its neurotoxic side effects. When it became known that her research proved that fluoride is neurotoxic, she was ordered to present her findings at the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR). "That's when the 'fun' started," she said, "I had no idea what I was getting into. I walked into the main corridors there and all over the walls was 'The Miracle of Fluoride'.3

The administrators at Forsyth were afraid that they would loose their research funding from NIDR if she published her results, but she refused to promise not to publish them. "Subsequently, she was continually hounded by both Forsyth and the NIH as to the identity of the journal in which her research was to be published. She told The WINDS that she refused to disclose that information because she knew the purpose of this continual interrogation was so that they could attempt to quash its publication." 3 In 1994, Dr. Mullenix was dismissed from Forsyth after she announced that her research paper was accepted for publication in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. "Following her dismissal, the scientist's equipment and computers, designed specifically for the studies, were mysteriously damaged and destroyed by water leakage before she could remove them from Forsyth. Coincidence?"3

An April 4 article in the Boston Globe, "Are we brushing aside fluoride's dangers?"4 explored some of the recent warnings about fluoride and fluoridation: fluoride causes dental fluorosis and bone cancer, fluoride is neurotoxic and can cause several kinds of brain impairment, the FDA requires a warning on tubes of toothpaste stating, ". . . in case of accidental ingestion, contact a Poison Control Center immediately," and that NFFE Local 2050, the EPA headquarters professional's union, has filed a grievance requesting bottled water because the tap water at the EPA offices is fluoridated.

In a May 17 letter to the editor of the Boston Globe5, four administrators from dental schools complained that concerns about fluoride were unfounded and stated,

Readers should know that two of the world's most esteemed scientific bodies conducted reviews of the health effects of ingested fluoride. In 1991, the US Public Health Service concluded that fluoride does not pose a health risk to the public and that fluoride continues to demonstrate effectiveness against tooth decay. In 1993, the National Research Council, a component of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted a similar review of the health effects of fluoride and had a similar positive conclusion regarding fluoride's safety.

"These extensive studies have been reviewed and approved by prestigious organizations," says Donald Hay, the immediate supervisor who fired Dr. Mullenix.5 Donald Hay said, "My concern was that Dr. Mullenix, who had no published record in fluoride research, was reaching conclusions that seemed to differ from a large body of research reported over the last 50 years."5

One might entertain the idea that scientists are supposed to discover something new. All those research papers sponsored by prestigious organizations for the last 50 years failed to discover what Dr. Mullenix discovered because they did not have the technology she had.

The prestigious National Academy of Sciences held a workshop on dietary reference intakes on September 23, 1997. The workshop was an attempt to gain credibility for the idea that fluoride is a "beneficial element," if not a nutrient. When the NAS panel at the workshop was confronted by a group of scientists about why scientific evidence of fluoride toxicity was omitted. they "became defensive and were unwilling or unable to explain why such findings had been excluded . . . "6

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) studied fluoride for 13 years and found evidence that fluoride causes bone cancer in lab rats. A prestigious senior official from the US Public Health Service, experienced in the prestigious art of writing scientific reviews, rewrote the NTP report to make it appear that the evidence that fluoride is carcinogenic is equivocal instead of definitive.5 William Marcus, Ph.D. senior toxicologist in the EPA Office of Drinking Water, blew the whistle on this cover up. When he examined the original data of the experiment, Dr. Marcus found that there was clear evidence that fluoride causes cancer and that the results had been deliberately downgraded by the reviewer. Marcus publicly stated that there could be more than 10,000 avoidable fluoride-related deaths per year.7 For this, Dr. Marcus was fired in 1990. Dr Marcus sued. In 1992, the EPA was ordered by the court to rehire him and pay back pay, legal expenses and $50,000 in damages. "EPA appealed, but the appeal was turned down in 1994 by Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich who accused EPA of firing Dr. Marcus in retaliation for speaking his mind in public. Reich found among other things that EPA had shredded important evidence that would have supported Dr. Marcus in court. The original trial proceedings also show that EPA employees who wanted to testify on behalf of Dr. Marcus were threatened by their own management. EPA officials also forged some of his time cards, and then accused him of misusing his official time."8

Centuries ago, prestigious organizations resisted the acceptance of scientific evidence that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. In a recent editorial, "Authoritarianism versus scientific evidence," Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D., suggests that the authority of prestigious organizations is once again being abused to obstruct the progress of science.9


  1. Mark Gold, mgold@tiac.net, e-mail 13 Sep 1998, www.holisticmed.net/add/mullenix.txt.
  2. Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D., PJMTOX@aol.com, e-mail, 14 Sep 1998, www.holisticmed.net/add/mullenix.txt.
  3. "Did government approve citizens as toxic waste sites?" The Winds, 1998, thewinds.org/archive/medical/fluoride01-98.html.
  4. Mark Hertsgaard and Phillip Frazer, "Are we brushing aside fluoride's dangers?" Salon, February 17, 1999, www.salonmagazaine.com/news/1999/02/17news.html, reprinted in The Boston Globe, April 4, 1999, p. C1.
  5. Dr. Dominic P. DePaola, President and CEO of Forsyth Dental Center, Dr. R. Bruce Donoff, Dean Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Dr. Spencer Frankl, Dean, Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston University, Dr. Lonnie H. Norris, Dean, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, "False fears about the use of fluoride," The Boston Globe, May 17, 1999.
  6. Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D., et al., Letter to Dr. Bruce Alberts, October 15, 1997, www.sonic.net/kryptox/nutri/alberts.htm.
  7. Alternative Medicine.com, www.alternativemedicine.com/digest/issue01/i01-a06a.shtml.
  8. Robert J. Carton, Ph.D., "Corruption and Fraud at the EPA," www.sonic.net/kryptox/politics/carton.htm.
  9. Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D., "Authoritarianism versus scientific evidence," Fluoride 31(3) 1998 p. 129, www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-3/313-129.htm.

Hardy Limeback, DDS in the news

July 13, 1999

Dr. Hardy Limeback is a professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto. He is a recognized authority on fluoridation. Those who promote fluoridation have often cited his work. In interviews 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 harm to bones and teeth which can result from the accumulation of fluoride. In the first Toronto Star article, "A crack appears in the fluoride front," April 25, 1999, there is a horizontal line across column three on the second page. This line was supposed to indicate that the material in the following paragraphs is a general review by the news staff writer about about diseases attributable to fluorides or fluoridation.

In a second interview, Dr. Limeback reaffirmed that ". . . parents should keep fluoride away from children under three." The Ontario Dental Association has nevertheless reaffirmed its support for fluoridation. -- Michael Downey, "Few answers to support fluoride use," Toronto Star, May 2, 1999.

Two days later, the Toronto Globe and Mail carried an article in the health section suggesting that filtered water is an alternative to the fluoridated tap water in Toronto. "Drinking bottled water or using a reverse osmosis filtration device on household taps is an option, but that may be too costly for some. It's also important to make sure you and your children ingest as little of fluoridated toothpaste as possible after brushing your teeth. You might not want to use fluoridated toothpaste at all with children under 6." -- Krista Foss, Health Reporter, "Are we getting too much fluoride?", the Toronto Globe and Mail, May 4, 1999. http://www.nofluoride.com/globe%26mail.htm

A list of companies selling water filters for removing fluoride is in the Water Filters directory of Fluoride Issues.

Dr. Limeback's views on fluoridation are published at www.interlog.com/~hardyl/fluoride/fluoride.html. His home page is at www.interlog.com/~hardyl/home.html.

HB 939 stalls in Pennsylvania Legislature

July 3, 1999

HB 939 was sponsored by Thomas Tigue, D-Luzerne, in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Arthur Hershey, R-Cochranville, is chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Comittee. He will not let the bill out of his committee. Hershey was quoted by the Philadelphia Inquirer as saying, "Even if it does retard tooth decay, what if you've overtreated your water? What else could it do to your body? I'm worried about human error." For details, see Mandatory Pennsylvania Fluoridation Alert and the PEN Fluoridation Leadership Team website.

Copyright © 2002 Daniel A. Montgomery