Cent4dent Blog

This is the body of an email received today. The information is old to me. It is, however, new to my website. For further information please go to my fluorosis page.

You might also be interested in reading what the Scientific American had to say about the use of Fluoride on children’s teeth.

Neither the European Dental Associations, nor Health Canada recommend fluoride supplements. They cause problems and no evidence of benefit. And further, they are illegal to market because fluoride supplements are not FDA approved.

The Pfizar settlement for $2.3 billion for “off label” marketing pales compared to fluoride supplements and fluoridation which if it goes to court in the same way would be many trillions of dollars. Simply would put any manufacturer out of business.

The science is very powerful not to ingest fluoride.

Let me know if you want more info.

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

—–Original Message—–
From: acesthetics@googlegroups.com [mailto:acesthetics@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Shirley Gutkowski
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:18 PM
To: ACEsthetics@googlegroups.com group
Subject: [ACEsthetics] Fwd: [RDH]: chewable fluoride

From the Amyrdh List:

From: []
Date: 09/18/2009 09:53

Subject: chewable fluoride

Listers,

We had a patient come in today who said her pediatrician could no longer prescrbe fluoride vitamins because one the manufactuers stopped making them. Interesting!

This was news to me.

I had to look it up and here is an article

http://www.ashp.org/Import/PRACTICEANDPOLICY/PracticeResourceCenters/DrugShortages/GettingStarted/CurrentShortages/Bulletin.aspx?id=486

What do you all think?

Michele in NY

who told her they found out that the fluoride actually works topically, as in toothpastes and rinses.

Bulletin
Sodium Fluoride Chewable Tablets
19 August 2009

Products Affected – Description

Sodium fluoride 0.5 mg chewable tablets, 1000-count (NDC 52152-0127-05), Actavis – discontinued
Sodium fluoride 1 mg chewable tablets, 1000-count (NDC 52152-0128-05), Actavis – discontinued

Ethedent 0.25 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 58177-0432-40), Ethex – discontinued
Ethedent 0.5 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 58177-0433-40), Ethex – discontinued
Ethedent 0.5 mg chewable tablets, 1000-count (NDC 58177-0433-09), Ethex – discontinued
Ethedent 1 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 58177-0434-40), Ethex – discontinued
Ethedent 1 mg chewable tablets, 1000-count (NDC 58177-0434-09), Ethex – discontinued

Fluor-A-Day 0.25 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 51817-0602-16), Pharmascience
Fluor-A-Day 0.5 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 51817-0611-16), Pharmascience
Fluor-A-Day 1 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 51817-0622-16), Pharmascience

Luride 0.25 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 00126-0186-21), Colgate – discontinued
Luride 0.5 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 00126-0014-21), Colgate – discontinued
Luride 1 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 00126-0006-21), Colgate – discontinued

Pharmaflur 1 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 00813-0067-12), Pharmics – discontinued
Pharmaflur 1.1 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 00813-0065-12), Pharmics – discontinued
Pharmaflur 2.2 mg chewable tablets, 120-count (NDC 00813-0066-12), Pharmics – discontinued

Sodium fluoride 2.2 mg chewable tablets, 100 count (NDC 58223-0676-01), Kirkman – discontinued
Sodium fluoride 2.2 mg chewable tablets, 1000 count (NDC 58223-0673-04), Kirkman – discontinued

Reason for the Shortage

Actavis has discontinued their fluoride chewable tablets due to manufacturing problems.
Pharmascience states Fluor-A-Day chewable tablets are on back order due to increased demand.
Colgate has discontinued all its Luride chewable tablets. The company would not provide a reason for the discontinuation.
Pharmics has discontinued Pharmaflur chewable tablets for unknown reasons.
Ethex has discontinued Ethedent chewable tablets for unknown reasons.
Kirkman has discontinued their 2.2 mg tablets due to product formulation issues. The company plans to release a 2.2 mg tablet in the future (NDC number not available yet).

Estimated Resupply Dates

Pharmascience has all of their Fluor-A-Day chewable tablets on back order and the company cannot estimate a release date.
Kirkman has available sodium fluoride 0.55 mg chewable tablets in 100-count (NDC 58223-0675-01) and 1000-count (NDC 58223-0675-04) bottles and 1.1 mg chewable tablets in 100-count (NDC 58223-0674-01) and 1000-count (NDC 58223-0674-04) bottles.
Fluoritab is available as 0.5 mg chewable tablets in 100-count (NDC 00288-1106-01), 1000-count (NDC 00288-1106-10), and 5000-count (NDC 00288-1106-02) bottles; and 1 mg chewable tablets in 100-count (NDC 00288-2203-01), 1000-count (NDC 00288-2203-10), and 5000-count (NDC 00288-2203-02) bottles.
River’s Edge Pharma has available Renaf 1 mg chewable tablets in 120 count (NDC 68032-0384-12) and 1000 count (NDC 68032-0384-00) bottles, 0.5 mg chewable tablets in 120 count (NDC 68032-0383-12) and 1000 count (NDC 68032-0383-00) bottles, and 0.25 mg chewable tablets in 120 count bottles (NDC 68032-0382-12).

To the Editor:

Your recent article about the proposal before the New Jersey legislature to fluoridate the water in every town in the state was gravely incorrect in many ways. It stated that fluoridation was such benefit to mankind there wouldn’t be a dentist who would criticize the proposal. As a member of the International Academy of Oral and Medical Toxicology I can tell you that you would find a tremendous number of dentists who would argue that there are far better ways to prevent the decay in teeth than by adding this toxin (your article cited mottling of enamel as a downside of fluoridation, I would point to the clusters of testicular cancer in adolescent males as a worse side effect) to the water supply. If skin cancer was to be combated, would you add SPF 50 to the water supply? Of course not, its action is topical. So too is the action of fluoride on enamel. Why put it in water to make sure it goes to every organ system in the body? For those who want to learn more, I would suggest the following websites:

www.FluorideAction.net www.DentalWellness4u.com and a section of my website which has links to the Scientific American article of January 2008 which also found that fluoride has been of little benefit, since introduced, in reducing dental decay: http://www.cent4dent.com/html/treatment/fluorosis.html The conclusory paragraph of that article states: “Some longtime fluoride researchers, however, remain unimpressed by the evidence of effects beyond teeth and bones, and they continue to push for an expansion of water fluoridation in the U.S. and elsewhere. Their view remains the official position of the American Dental Association and the U.S. Public Health Service. “We feel there are enough communities out there with high caries rates to justify additional fluoridation,” says Jayanth V. Kumar, director of oral health surveillance and research at the New York State Department of Health and a member of the NRC panel who dissented from some of its findings. He acknowledges, however, that the argument for water fluoridation is not as strong in affluent areas with good nutrition and dental care. “Today it depends on what the caries level is in the community. If the disease is low, the return on investment [for fluoridation] may not be all that great.””

This is therefore an issue of diligence. If parents are more diligent about what their children ingest; if parents are diligent about brushing their children’s teeth; diligent about getting kids to the dentist regularly from the time they can talk, this discussion would be “Why are government officials dumping surplus toxic waste (fluoride) into our water supply?”

Finally, did it trouble you that there was not a single general dentist south of Trenton in your “Top Dentists in New Jersey” article? I would strenuously question whoever did your mailing about what zip codes were on the list. Is it a theory similar to that of New Yorkers, that the world ends at the Hudson River? Does your exclusion of Southern NJ Dentists mean that New Jersey ends at I 195?

If space allows, I would ask you to consider the following quotes from the Scientific American article, and would suggest that concerned parents and individuals contact your local state representatives by forwarding this message on to them.

The endocrine system is yet another area where some evidence exists that fluoride can have an impact. The NRC committee concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid—the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influenced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.”

Bone is an obvious place to look for fluoride’s fingerprints because so much fluoride is stored there. What is more, studies of patients with osteoporosis—a bone disease that increases the risk of fractures—have shown that high doses of fluoride can stimulate the proliferation of bone-building osteoblast cells, even in elderly patients. The exact mechanism is still unknown, but fluoride appears to achieve this by increasing the concentrations of tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins, which are involved in biochemical signaling to osteoblasts. As with tooth enamel, however, fluoride not only stimulates bone mineralization, it also appears to alter the crystalline structure of bone—and in this case, the effects are not merely aesthetic. Although fluoride may increase bone volume, the strength of the bone apparently declines.

The even bigger question looming over the fluoride debate is whether these known cellular effects in bones and teeth are clues that fluoride is affecting other organs and triggering other diseases besides fluorosis. The biggest current debate is over osteosarcoma—the most common form of bone cancer and the sixth most prevalent cancer in children. Because fluoride stimulates the production of osteoblasts, several researchers have suggested that it might induce malignant tumors in the expanding cell population. A 1990 study conducted by the U.S. government’s National Toxicology Program found a positive dose-response relation for osteosarcoma incidence in male rats exposed to different amounts of fluoride in drinking water (all those amounts, as is typical for animal studies, were far above the actual exposures found in fluoridated communities).

After spending more than two years reviewing and debating hundreds of studies, a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) released a report in 2006 that gave a tinge of legitimacy to some longtime assertions made by antifluoridation campaigners. The report concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency’s current limit for fluoride in drinking water—four milligrams per liter (mg/L)—should be lowered because of health risks to both children and adults. In children, consistent exposure to fluoride at that level can discolor and disfigure emerging permanent teeth—a condition called dental fluorosis. In adults, the same fluoride level appears to increase the risk of bone fracture and, possibly, of moderate skeletal fluorosis, a painful stiffening of the joints. Most fluoridated water contains much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the situation is worrisome because there is so much uncertainty over how much additional fluoride we ingest from food, beverages and dental products. What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study.

Currently, there is no federal agency that can control the admisitration of fluoride to the water supply. It is up to the individual municipalities, and that is fraught with other potential problems. You might enjoy this artlicle: http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000716_fluoride_water_supply_accident.html and other recent articles about fluoride toxicity from my blogsite: http://cent4dent.com/blog/?cat=7

Steve Markus
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon
209 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
856 546 0665
www.SmileSouthJersey.com

A group in Georgia called The Lillie Center has been documenting
these fluoride/environmental racism connections and has been
advocating around it. [If this angle is new to you, see our
documentation on it here:
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html] They got the National
Kidney Foundation to withdraw their official support for water
fluoridation. The Kidney Foundation now states that chronic kidney
patients should be warned of fluoride exposure risks. In legal
terms, this established a new “standard of care” and other
professionals who don’t meet it may be liable for negligence. The
Lillie Center is trying to peel off other medical association
supporters of fluoridation from the long list of groups that have
been supporting this scientifically indefensible position for decades.

Currently, they’re working on the American Osteopathic Association
and the National Medical Association. The latter is the association
of black physicians (formed as an alternative to the American Medical
Association, which just last year, officially apologized to black
physicians for past discrimination). NMA is one of the supporters of
fluoridation, and if we can manage to turn them around on this, the
pressure on AMA to follow suit will be much greater.

The person I spoke with recently at The Lillie Center (Daniel
Stockin, MPH) would love to have people inquire with letters to these
associations and individual osteopaths about their position on this,
asking questions like:

1) are you currently informing anyone who has any kidney
impairment of the risks of F exposure, and
2) are you doing an assessment of past body burden of fluoride?

This could get the associations to think more about the legal
liabilities with failing to follow the higher standard of care set by
the Kidney Foundation. For further information be sure to read: http://www.cent4dent.com/html/treatment/fluorosis.html

See related documents —>
1. Dental fluorosis pics: see www.fluoridealert.org/dental-fluorosis.htm and be sure to scroll all the way down. CDC believes that millions of blacks (who have 79% more than whites of the worst forms — moderate and severe dental fluorosis) should simply live with the disfigurement if they don’t have the funds for teeth repair caused by the fluoride damage. CDC refuses to openly show photos of dental fluorosis to the black community, and refuses to answer a formal ethics complaint received about this. Remember: if fluorides do this to the hardest surfaces in the body – the teeth – it’s not an illogical question to ask what fluorides do to soft tissues. It turns out that fluorides harm the thyroid, brain (per the Chinese, multiple studies), the kidneys, and also the bones.

2. The National Kidney Foundation has recently changed its position about fluoridated water safety for kidney patients, now stating that chronic kidney disease patients “should be notified of the potential risk” of fluoride ingestion. As a result of NKF’s changed position, the American Dental Assn has been forced to remove the National Kidney Foundation from ADA’s list of organizations supporting fluoridation. Here’s a couple of links from Forbes and a dental industry web portal (bear in mind that the dental industry is grudgingly acknowledging this): http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/06/09/prnewswire200806090956PR_NEWS_USPR_____DC24601.html

http://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=hyg&pag=dis&ItemID=300693&wf=34

Because blacks comprise nearly 30% of end stage renal disease patients, yet are only around 13% of the U.S. population, the black community deserves to hear about fluoride’s harm to kidneys, but the Amer. Dental Assn, CDC, and other health groups are petrified of the whole story about fluoride’s harm coming out. I find this deeply disturbing that blacks are once again getting left out – not being told the whole story. Black physicians are also not being told the facts.

3. The legal consequences of the hiding of the whole story about harm from fluoride are starting. Both sides of the political spectrum are now upset about fluoride.Here is an article you’ll want to see about the American Water Works Assn. I was quoted in this piece as follows: “Think about it: If a 230-pound man and a 15-pound baby each drink one glass of water, they each receive the same dose of fluoride,” he said. “Does it make any sense at all to give both of them the same amount, regardless of body size or health history, and to not know or monitor how much fluoride they’re drinking or ingesting from other sources?”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67360

4. Here is an article about “Fluoride-Gate” we wrote that was first published in the Juneau, Alaska newspaper, then subsequently picked up by US Water News, the Wall Street Journal of water publications, and sent to thousands of water districts across the U.S.: http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/011508/opi_20080115024.shtml

5. Here is a video interview of 3 scientists about the general kidney-fluoride issue. Note the second lady who is a toxicologist and expert witness on fluoride issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utB94Jee0Os The first lady in the video, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, was a member of the National Research Council’s panel that released a 500 page report on fluoride in 2006; she has also said this about fluoride and blacks:
“The NRC report indicated that kidney patients, diabetics, infants, and other groups are susceptible population groups. I am also personally concerned that black and other minority Americans are disproportionately harmed by fluoride, and I believe there is a potential risk of thyroid damage for overexposed Americans in general.”
In a January 2008 Scientific American article about fluorides, toxicologist John Doull, the chairman of the NRC panel, admitted, “The thyroid changes do worry me.”

6. Here’s a 3-minute news story about a physician-legislator who was a former fluoridation supporter until he looked at the data for himself, instead of simply believing the talking points provided by CDC and the Amer. Dental Assn. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4876909488212286065

7. Lastly, in case you haven’t seen CDC’s statement about infant milk formula and fluoride – that parents of newborns may wish to use unfluoridated water for baby’s milk formula — this affects economically disadvantaged families who do not have funds for bottled or unfluoridated water. Black physicians and millions of black families do not know this information, because CDC refused to issue even a press release. (CDC is trying to say “We told you about this, without really telling anyone – a legal strategy.) Here’s CDC’s statement:

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1

Here CDC says: “If tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride (0.7 mg/L or higher), a parent may consider using a low-fluoride alternative water source.” CDC also says in this document: “Although formula itself has low amounts of fluoride, when infant formula concentrate is mixed with fluoridated water and used as the primary source of nutrition, it may introduce fluoride at levels above the amount recommended to minimize the risk for fluorosis. Infants consume little other than breast milk or formula during the first four to six months of life, and continue to have a high intake of liquids during the entire first year. Therefore, proportional to body weight, fluoride intake from liquids is generally higher for younger or smaller children than for older children, adolescents, or adults.”

The National Research Council says infants and children receive 3-4 times the amount of fluoride dose as do adults, on a body weight basis.

Daniel G. Stockin, MPH
The Lillie Center, Inc.
Ellijay, GA 706-669-0786

In the Fall 1999 Journal of Public Health Dentistry, dental researcher and former dental journal editor Brian A. Burt, Ph.D., M.P.H., B.D.Sc., University of Michigan Emeritus Professor, writes:

“It is therefore concluded that the risks of using supplements in infants and young children outweigh the benefits. Because alternative forms of fluoride for high-risk individuals exist, fluoride supplements should no longer be used for young children in North America.”(8)

To read the entire article,

click here

Our website also has a tremendous amount of information on this topic, click here:

….. Falling fluoride levels alerted water treatment officials to the problem, and they immediately issued an alert to tell people to stop drinking the water. The water system was then flushed by opening fire hydrants across the town to remove any trace of hydrochloric acid.

But here’s the hilarious part in all this: Hydrochloric acid is safer than fluoride! It’s the same acid used in your stomach to digest food, and at levels of a few parts per million, it’s absolutely harmless. The real poison in the water is the toxic fluoride being dumped into the water supply by ignorant city officials all around the world…..

Full article at:

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000716_fluoride_water_supply_accident.html

Read more on our site’s fluorosis page www.cent4dent.com

The letter to the editor below just got published in the Pottstown,
PA paper. Pottstown is the only fluoridated water system in Montgomery County.

Good work Donna!

Mike
——

http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2009/01/10/opinion/srv0000004458014.txt

Opinion

ACE: Fluoride in public water is unnecessary and not safe

Saturday, January 10, 2009 6:13 AM EST

It’s perplexing and even shameful that the American Dental
Association is refusing to look at the overwhelming evidence showing
fluoridation of public water is ineffective, unnecessary, and not
safe. ACE commends the Pottstown Water Authority members who looked
at reality, rejected dental association spin, and opposed
fluoridation of Pottstown’s water.

In 2007, ACE did extensive research on fluoridation:

A wealth of new data is available showing harms from fluoridation,
including a major review by the National Academy of Sciences of over
1,000 scientific papers, published March 2006. Their report said
EPA’s standards are not protective of public health, documenting
fluoride’s role in damage to tooth enamel, brittle bones, increased
risk of fractures, possible links to diabetes, reduced IQ, early
onset of puberty and impaired thyroid function.

The union representing about 1,500 scientists, lawyers, engineers,
and other professional employees at US EPA in Washington stated in
2001, “.fluuoridation is unreasonable risk.. hazards can include.
impaired kidney function, cancer, reproductive effects,
neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

Over 1200 professionals made overwhelming scientific arguments
against fluoridation. http://www.fluoridealert.org.

Evidence links fluoride to bone disease and fracture, bone cancer;
brain, pineal gland and kidney problems; allergic/hypersensitive
reactions, gastrointestinal tract problems, dental fluorosis, and
more. http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/sitemap.html.

Ninety percent of water fluoridation chemicals are toxic waste
byproducts of Florida’s phosphate industry, contaminated with
arsenic, lead, mercury, radon and other impurities. These chemicals
are regulated as hazardous waste if dumped in rivers, lakes, or
oceans – yet sold for use in drinking water systems. The practice of
water fluoridation helps the phosphate industry convert millions of
dollars in hazardous waste disposal costs to a profit from sales to
public water systems.

It’s unethical to force everyone to ingest toxic chemicals that
aren’t needed to make drinking water safe. Adding fluoride
discriminates against the poor and underprivileged who can’t afford
to buy and maintain costly filtration required to remove fluoride.
People can reject fluoride in food, beverages, and dental products,
but when added to water, choice is eliminated.

Pottstown area residents are overexposed to toxic chemicals. Without
precautionary positions and decisions of caring Pottstown officials
in the past, this region would face far greater pollution risks. The
most precautionary approach is required. That’s not adding fluoride to water.

ACE encourages Pottstown officials to continue to follow the
Precautionary Principle and continue to say NO to fluoridation of
Pottstown’s water. That will actually protect public health while
saving taxpayers’ money. For more fluoridation facts, visit
www.FluorideAction.org

The Alliance for Clean Environment

Board of Directors

URL: http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2009/01/10/opinion/srv0000004458014.prt
To learn more about why this dentist doesn’t believe fluoride belongs in the water supply (if you wanted to prevent skin cancer would you put Coppertone in the water supply?) visit my website page on that subject.

A letter written by a friend of mine. For more information, be sure to read the Scientific American article on Fluoride which you can get to from http://www.cent4dent.com/html/treatment/fluorosis.html

Just writing to share some good news…

Another legislative session in Pennsylvania has gone by and the
mandatory fluoridation bill failed to pass once again. In nearly
every legislative session in Pennsylvania in the last 20 years, there
has been an attempt to mandate fluoridation. See

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/bills.html

In the 2007-2008 session, the bill passed through two House
committees in 2007, but stalled and ultimately died in the
Appropriations committee, where it was assigned in November
2007. See

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2007&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=1649

About 9-10% of PA water systems are fluoridated, service just over
half of PA water customers. The bill, if passed, would have made it
mandatory and would have increased the fluoridated population to around 97%.

In spite of an increasingly organized lobbying effort for the
mandate, the fluoride pushers still failed to get the bill through
one house (as they managed to do in 2006). In this past session, the
fluoride pushers in PA have a new lobbying coalition with a fancy
website at: http://www.pafluoridenow.org While they have a PA
fluoridation map that’s way cooler than ours
(http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/), they apparently don’t have
the political clout to overcome the opposition from water suppliers
and concerned water customers in PA. It seems that our activity in
2007 was enough to keep the bill dead through all of 2008.

For those who haven’t seen them, we’ve developed some good new web
content while working on this in the past couple of years. See:

10 Reasons to Oppose Mandatory Fluoridation

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html

“Drugs in the Water” Testimony before Philadelphia City Council

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/testimony.pdf

Water Fluoridation Chemical Shortages and Rising Costs

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html

Is Water Fluoridation an Environmental Racism issue?

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html

If history is a guide, they’ll be back with another bill early in
2009. Since I’ve started law school in August and now spend most of
my time in DC, I can’t be as available as I’ve been to lead things in
PA. Judy Luther and others have been helpful in trying to fill this
void. If you haven’t been very active in this yet, and would like to
help step things up, let me know. We’ve been hoping to start new
campaigns to end fluoridation in local communities where it’s already
going on, starting with the City of Chester, PA — where the Chester
Water Authority is contributing to an already extreme environmental
racism problem. Frances, Dolores, Desire, Carole and others in
Chester and the DelCo Alliance for Environmental Justice
(http://www.ejnet.org/chester/) have been educating people about the
problems with fluoridation and I hope that we can make Chester the
first of many communities in PA to reverse this practice of using
drinking water systems as toxic waste dumps.

Please consider donating time or money to help us win in 2009.

Happy New Year!

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

http://www.actionpa.org

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

My friend Audrey has an Autistic 22 year old son. He is very chemically sensitive and she kept daily records of both her daughter and son as they were growing up. She has detailed records how they reacted and when they had vaccinations, etc. Very powerful story.

As you can see from our posts below she is well informed and has good advice.

Bill

Bill -

No, I am not opposed to all vaccines, but most. My geologist daughter stepped on a rusty nail at a jobsite a few weeks ago. She panicked, not so much because of the injury, but because she was worried about whether or not to get a vaccine. She was relieved when her overbearing and very opinionated mother said, “Absolutely–you need a tetnus shot.” However, I told her she was going to have to fight to get a mercury-free shot and I told her to say she is allergic to thimerosal. I instructed her to very carefully read the actual container and never accept their word that it doesn’t contain thimerosal. That played out exactly as I had warned. The nurse was “certain” there was no mercury or thimerosal (though she couldn’t pronounce it) in the shot, but of course upon close examination my daughter pointed it out to the nurse. Then they said they didn’t have any other tetnus shots available. But, just as I advised, she told them she knew they were legally required to have a mercury-free version because it’s illegal in this state to give children under the age of 3 vaccinations with mercury. So she finally got it. So, the consumer must always be very well informed and intensively insistent. It took her 45 minutes of arguing, but was well worth the time and trouble.

Regarding childhood vaccines, when I advise my nieces I tell them never to get any flu shots—EVER!—for themselves or their children. The vaccine manufacturers must guess 18 months in advance which flu strain is coming to town out of the possible many hundreds. To cover their bases, they chose three to inject you with. After several months of fear-invoking media blitz beginning in the fall, the CDC might quietly mention in March that they guessed wrong—then again, they probably won’t. Meanwhile, you were exposed to those three viruses in addition to whatever actually DID come to town. To top it off, you’ve suddenly exposed yourself to mercury which is a severe immune system disrupter. Great. For your money, you get more viruses, less immune protection and a boost of heavy metals.

I also tell young mom’s not to get the Hep B vaccine until or unless there is a reasonable risk factor. The risk factors are 1) any prior intraveneous drug use of the mother or 2) sexual intercourse (involving the baby, that is). It’s ridiculous to vaccinate a newborn baby for a sexual encounter they may have in 15 years. The timing is merely for convenience and has never been tested for long term safety or even effectiveness. That’s right—never. If the mom is unsure (as to whether or not she’s been shooting up), she can be tested for Hep B.

The very worst time to vaccinate is during the first year of life—this is especially true if the baby is not primarily breast fed that first year or if the mom’s immune system isn’t perfectly healthy. Another insane vaccination is chicken pox. For crying out loud, it’s a rash! And, keep in mind that vaccines do not provide the same immunity as if the body has to actually fight the real disease. This means that those kids that don’t actually get the chicken pox will be more suseptible as adults when their own children are in school and exposed to everything. When my children were 3 and 5, I purposely exposed them and had a chicken pox party, several neighbors sent their kids since it was June…a very good time to be laid up for a little while. In hindsight, I should have done the same with measles.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but I think you’d best spend your time looking at a well-researched website. This is my favorite, most concise and most comprehensive website:

http://www.generationrescue.org/vaccines.html

That page has all the information, including links to articles, other websites and thoughtful books, that anyone will need to make a decision.

Audrey

I just got a new web page up on the issue of fluoridation chemical
shortages and the rising costs of the chemicals.

Check it out:

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html

If anyone has actual data on the increasing costs to local
Pennsylvanian water suppliers for buying fluoridation chemicals, I’d
love to see that data.

In defeating House Bill 1649, I think we’ll get a lot further if the
water suppliers (including those already fluoridating) are screaming
bloody murder about what a mandate will do to the price (and
availability) of fluoridation chemicals. Many other cities
throughout North America are already facing shortages and some
haven’t been able to secure the chemicals, causing some fluoridation
programs to be discontinued or to face disruptions. Even the PA DEP
issued a notice in October 2007 about potential shortages in supply
– and the permitting and enforcement ramifications. You can find a
link to this near the bottom of the new page above (second bullet in
the list of articles on fluoridation chemical shortages).

Mike Ewall, ActionPA
215-743-4884
catalyst@actionpa.org

http://www.actionpa.org