Cent4dent Blog

There is much pressure on parents and pre-teens for additional vaccinations today. Listen to a fair podcast about these issues by clicking here.

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

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

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

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

Mike
—–

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

April 14th, 2008

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

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

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

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

Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products

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

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

Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decay
The intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.

Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]

Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water
In late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]

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

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

EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation

The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]

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

Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, "Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts." RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.

Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs

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

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

City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save money
In the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]

In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]

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

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

Thank you.

Mike Ewall
Founder & Director
ActionPA
1434 Elbridge St.
Philadelphia, PA 19149
215-743-4884
catalyst@actionpa.org

http://www.actionpa.org

Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:36pm NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Dental practices may be a source of a dangerous form of mercury contamination in the water supply, a small study suggests.

In tests of wastewater from two dental practices, researchers at the University of Illinois found high levels of methylated mercury — a chemically altered form of the metal that is toxic to the brain and nervous system.

Mercury is part of the silver dental fillings that have long been used to treat cavities; in this form, mercury is believed to be safe.

However, when dentists use drills to remove these fillings, the tiny mercury particles that end up in dental wastewater are exposed to sulfate-reducing bacteria that convert the particles into methyl mercury.

The new findings, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, raise the concern that dental offices may be an important source of methyl mercury in the public water supply.

“We found the highest levels of methyl mercury ever reported in any environmental water sample,” researcher Dr. Karl J. Rockne, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a statement.

He and his colleagues estimate that up to 11 pounds of methyl mercury from dental wastewater may enter the U.S. public water supply each year. The amount sounds small, but they note that minute amounts of this form of mercury can be toxic.

The findings are, however, based on tests from only two dental practices — one “single-chair” office and one 12-chair clinic.

More research is still needed to confirm the results, Rockne said.

In the U.S., public drinking water supplies are monitored for mercury, and if a system’s levels are consistently above a certain threshold, steps must be taken to reduce them to acceptable levels.

Mercury that gets into the water can also be consumed by fish and work its way into the food supply.

Dental offices are far from the most significant source of environmental mercury pollution in the U.S. Coal-fired power plants emit about 50 tons of mercury into the air each year.

However, the problem of mercury in dental wastewater can be fixed. Devices called amalgam separators can help remove mercury particles from wastewater, and are a “good first step,” Rockne said.

But additional measures may be necessary, he added.

“We have to take more steps to prevent the problem from occurring in the first place,” Rockne said. “We’re dealing with a pipe — a control point. As an engineer, I see this as a problem that is tractable — something we can definitely do something about.”

SOURCE: Environmental Science & Technology, online March 12.

Michael,

Do you have a source for some of those studies which have ruled out mercury as a contributing factor for autism?

As each vaccine was accepted by the FDA, I heard no one at the FDA was considering the total dosage of chemicals from the vaccines.

Total exposure is a serious concern for many chemicals. Few are looking at that aspect.

Bill

Parents of autistic children I know are certain vaccinations are either a cause or contributing factor. Symptoms show up so soon after vaccinations.

I was looking for the lethal LD 50 dose of elemental mercury today and came on this EPA site.

Would thymerasol be considered “inorganic” mercury???

Mercury http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html

EPA site Sources and Potential Exposure

Elemental Mercury

A major source of exposure for elemental mercury is through inhalation in occupational settings. (1,3,4)
Another source of exposure to low levels of elemental mercury in the general population is elemental mercury released in the mouth from dental amalgam fillings. (3,4,5)

3. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html#ref3#ref3
4. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html#ref4#ref4
5. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html#ref5#ref5

At issue is the thimerosal (derived from Hg) used as a preservative in multi-dose vials and the fact that some individuals have an defective allele, APOE4 instead of APOE2. With a sulphydryl end group on the E4, there is an affinity for mercury uptake. There’s a whole lot of information about it on my website. http://www.cent4dent.com/html/mercury_issues/vaccines.html Nothing is definitive, but we are, as a nation, the most vaccinated in the world. Add to that the multiple vaccinations that pedes sometimes put youngsters through and you’ve got a potential problem. I’ve heard that by FDA standards of mercury exposure, by the time a child is 5 he would have to weigh 180 lbs to have that much Hg in his tissues.

There was never a pictogram for autism in Chinese until vaccination was introduced to their culture. Supposedly there’s a much lower rate of autism in Mennonites because they shun modern medicine. Try following some of the links on that page to other websites as well.

Steve Markus
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon
209 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
856 546 0665
www.cent4dent.com
—– Original Message —–
From: rcarterdds
To: ACEsthetics@GoogleGroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:15 PM
Subject: [ACEsthetics] vaccines and autism

What has changed in vaccines since I was a kid that makes them cause more autism now. Is it really that they now have mercury so that they can be preserved to allow use overseas and they weren’t preserved that way before? My kids tutor said she has been researching the subject and wouldn’t do vaccines till the kid is older.

???

controls?

bill domb

New autism treatment shows promise

April 9th, 2008

When University of Louisville researchers pulsed a low-frequency
magnetic field around the brains of people with autism, the patients
later experienced less severe symptoms.

The treatment, transcranial magnetic stimulation, is still in early
testing stages, but has potential to become an effective treatment for
the major symptoms of autism, said neuroscientist Manuel Casanova.

Members of the UofL research team placed a coil on the scalps of 10
people with autism to create a low-frequency magnetic field, which they
then pulsed by reversing the field’s polarity. After receiving a
20-minute treatment twice a week for five weeks, patients showed fewer
symptoms of hyperactivity, sensory overload and repetitive behaviors,
said psychologist Lonnie Sears, a project collaborator.

Full story at:

http://php.louisville.edu/news/news.php?news=1143

???

controls?

bill domb

New autism treatment shows promise

April 9th, 2008

When University of Louisville researchers pulsed a low-frequency
magnetic field around the brains of people with autism, the patients
later experienced less severe symptoms.

The treatment, transcranial magnetic stimulation, is still in early
testing stages, but has potential to become an effective treatment for
the major symptoms of autism, said neuroscientist Manuel Casanova.

Members of the UofL research team placed a coil on the scalps of 10
people with autism to create a low-frequency magnetic field, which they
then pulsed by reversing the field’s polarity. After receiving a
20-minute treatment twice a week for five weeks, patients showed fewer
symptoms of hyperactivity, sensory overload and repetitive behaviors,
said psychologist Lonnie Sears, a project collaborator.

Full story at:

http://php.louisville.edu/news/news.php?news=1143

Read this from the bottom to the top. This is a discussion held on the internet by caring dentists:

The FDA had also ruled out Hg in amalgam as a cause of neurotoxicity. Then their panel voted 13-7 against the adoption of their own white paper because of the information presented to the experts in Sept 2006 where I was one of the keynote speakers.

The FDA is now being sued for their failure to address the issue, at all. I have often wondered whether there were sinister powers at work, behind the scenes, at FDA to promote the use of Hg in humans; a sort-of Lex Luthor who ran his own sleeper-cell-government department.

The problem is that there can be no human experimentation with Hg to prove it unsafe. In Europe, the manufacturers must prove their materials safe, rather than the system in the US where the government must prove it unsafe. Remember, the Vimy study was undertaken to disprove the teachings of Huggins. Much to Maury’s (a wet-fingered dentist like you and I) surprise, the radioisotope of mercury was dispersed throughout the sheep’s (and later the primates’) bodies and crossed the placenta in a >2x concentration.

As I have said to my patients back in the early 90’s; and as stated by the authorities in Sweden when questioned about why they banned amalgam; and as I will say to the parents of my grandchildren: “I prefer to err on the side of caution.”
Steve Markus
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon
209 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
856 546 0665
www.cent4dent.com
—– Original Message —–
From: Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
To: mjhdds@aol.com ; smarkus147545@comcast.net ; rcarterdds@comcast.net ; ACEsthetics@GoogleGroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ACEsthetics] Re: vaccines and autism

Michael,

Do you have a source for some of those studies which have ruled out mercury as a contributing factor for autism?

As each vaccine was accepted by the FDA, I heard no one at the FDA was considering the total dosage of chemicals from the vaccines.

Total exposure is a serious concern for many chemicals. Few are looking at that aspect.

Bill
—– Original Message —–
From: MJHDDS@aol.com
To: smarkus147545@comcast.net ; rcarterdds@comcast.net ; ACEsthetics@GoogleGroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 7:06 PM
Subject: [ACEsthetics] Re: vaccines and autism

Mercury has been ruled out by several studies as a trigger for autism. They are looking at the vaccines, themselves, as the trigger. There is something in the genetic make-up of these kids that may allow a trigger to cause a change. There is still much to learn and there is definitely a multitude of differences in each case.
Michael Hoffmann

Here’s one that came in on Weds. She was seen by a local dentist who is a CE junky, so he should know better. The labial surfaces, she says, have been reworked because they are so thick. The only thing he got right were the premolars because the buccal corridor needed widening.

So, I’m getting closer to funding the sign with flashing lights for my front lawn:
WE REPAIR $500 VENEERS Call our office – 856 546 0665
Fortunately for her, I only have to do the six anteriors to make her smile better. Unfortunately for her, those 6 are gonna cost her a bit more than she paid for 10. The wax-up is in Juan Olivier’s hands now.

She looks like Bogart when she tries to smile, her obicularis oris (muscle that controls the lips) is being stretched like a rubber band. The smile line and mid lines are both canted (he missed the fact that her interpupillary line is not parallel to the horizon, she’s got one eye about 1/2 inch lower than the other.

The lower antherior plane isn’t parallel either. He was given ample opportunity to make things right, so now, for the cost of 10 veneers, perhaps he’ll take some training. Yes, that’s a nice little glob of cement distal to 12, that in all the time he spent trying to make her happy, he obviously never saw. And how about the natural appearance of 3/8″ thick porcleain! Look at the edge detail! The incisal bevel is in the wrong direction, so as to make those suckers look even thicker.

So when Cindy McKane asked what we thought about Lumineers on Sunday, on the CC board, this is what I see on a weekly basis for second opinions, and this, is what I read: “We got our first case back (free offer for an office member for 6 lumineers) and we totally rejected it. The shade and contours were very nice, but the gingival margins sucked so bad that is was a precursor to periodontal disease. They were jagged, fractured, uneven, overhung and short of the gingiva.

When we called, they refused to give me the name of the tech, stating that is not allowed. We were not even permitted to personally speak to the tech. We are to send them back and they will hopefully redo them but there is no guarantee which tech we will get.

I am very disappointed, especially since there is so much hype. The examples you see at the courses show nice smooth margins. These were a disaster. No way a patient, even a dental professional, could keep these hygienic.

Suzanne ”

I can’t be positive that these pictures are Lumineers, since I didn’t write the check to the lab, however, the patient told me that Lumineers are what she was told she was getting, by a dentist who touted his cosmetic expertise.

What makes this case even simpler is the anterior open bite.- I have launched a new website that talks about these and other issues at: www.theedgesmiles.com . Let me know what you think about what I’ve posted there.