Cent4dent Blog

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

From Bill Osmunson:

Very well done Steve.

Did you see these two recent abstracts?

Looks like most dentists, the ADA is unaware that fluoride’s benefits, if any, are topical and not systemic. The ADA persists in claiming fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20-40%. Looks like the ADA flunks Public Health Dentistry 101.

J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):140-7.
Knowledge and use of fluoride among Indiana dental professionals.
Yoder KM, Maupome G, Ofner S, Swigonski NL.

Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA. kmyoder@iupui.edu

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the knowledge of Indiana dentists and dental hygienists about fluoride’s predominant mode of action and their protocols for the use of fluoride for dental caries prevention. METHODS: In 2000, questionnaires were mailed to 6,681 Indiana dentists and hygienists prior to the 2001 release of recommendations for the use of fluoride by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2005, the questionnaires were again sent to Indiana dental professionals to assess changes in knowledge and protocols. In addition, a 10 percent sample of Illinois dentists and hygienists were surveyed to determine the similarity of Indiana and Illinois responses. RESULTS: Questionnaires were anonymously completed and returned. In 2000, a minority of Indiana health professionals (17 percent) correctly identified that remineralization was fluoride’s predominant mode of action. There was a significant increase in Indiana respondents correctly identifying this predominant mode of action between 2000 and 2005 (17 percent versus 25 percent, respectively, P < 0.0001). Fourteen percent of Illinois respondents answered correctly in 2005. Preeruptive incorporation of fluoride into enamel was the most frequently cited incorrect response (IN 2000, 79 percent; IN 2005, 71 percent; IL 2005, 82 percent). Some protocols for use of fluoride products reflected inadequate understanding of fluoride’s predominant posteruptive mode of action. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of dental professionals surveyed were unaware of the current understanding of fluoride’s predominant posteruptive mode of action through remineralization of incipient carious lesions. Additional research is indicated to assess fluoride knowledge and protocols of dental professionals nationwide. Educational efforts are needed to promote the appropriate use of fluoride.

PMID: 17899898 [PubMed - in process]

J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):151-8.
An investigation of bottled water use and caries in the mixed dentition.
Broffitt B, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Cavanaugh JE.

Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242, USA. barbara-broffitt@uiowa.edu

OBJECTIVES: Bottled water consumption in the United States has greatly increased in the past decade. Because the majority of commercial bottled water is low in fluoride, there is the potential for an increase in dental caries. In these secondary data analyses, associations between bottled water use and dental caries were explored. METHODS: Subjects (n = 413) are in the Iowa Fluoride Study, which included dental examinations of the primary (approximately aged 5) and early erupting permanent (approximately aged 9) dentitions by trained dentist examiners. Permanent tooth caries and primary second molar increments were related to bottled water use using logistic and negative binomial regression models. All models were adjusted for age and the frequency of toothbrushing. RESULTS: Bottled water use in this cohort was fairly limited (approximately 10 percent). While bottled water users had significantly lower fluoride intakes, especially fluoride from water, there were no significant differences found in either permanent tooth caries (P = 0.20 and 0.91 for prevalence and D(2+)FS, respectively) or primary second molar caries (P = 0.94 and 0.74 for incidence and d(2+)fs increment, respectively). Results for smooth surfaces differed somewhat from those for pit and fissure surfaces, but neither showed significant differences related to bottled water use. CONCLUSION: While bottled water users had significantly lower fluoride intakes, this study found no conclusive evidence of an association with increased caries. Further study is warranted, preferably using studies designed specifically to address this research question.

Hello Dr. Markus,
I read your letter in the Phila Inquirer, Page B2, 10/04/2007 on Fluoridation.

A very interesting letter since I have worked for the Phila Water Dept for about 30 years,
however, I am an Administrative Supervisor, not a chemist or engineer, etc.

You state in your letter that
“There have been pockets of testicular cancer in adolescent males
in fluoridated areas.”

Can you cite any medical or scientific studies that have been published about this
or any other scientifically tested danger or risk of fluoride in the drinking water?

Thank you, in advance, for your response and your time.

Daniel L. Plasky
wjm 55, life-long philadelphian
skatingdan@aol.com

AND MY REPLY:
Check out www.fluoridealert.org, or google testicular & fluoride

A 1992 New Jersey Department of Health report: “Between the years 1970 and 1989, the rate of osteosarcoma (among 10-19 year old males) was found to be 3.5 to 6.3 times greater in the fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas.”

http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?ID=540

Ghosh D, et al. (2002). Testicular toxicity in sodium fluoride treated rats: association with oxidative stress. Reproductive Toxicolology 16(4):385.

Narayana MV, Chinoy NJ. (1994). Effect of fluoride on rat testicular steroidogenesis. Fluoride 27: 7-12.

Sprando RL, et al. (1996). Effect of intratesticular injection of sodium fluoride on spermatogenesis. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34: 377-84.

Posted on Thu, Oct. 4, 2007

Letters | Brush up on facts before fluoridating water

Five years ago, I would have applauded the commentary calling for blanket fluoridation of all communities’ water supplies (“A simple step for dental health,” Sept. 26). Today, I have reason to take the opposing side. Recent evidence has shown that fluoridation of water supplies has done nothing to cut down on the rate of decay in the United States.
Fluoride acts by making enamel (hydroxyapatite) less soluble in acid (fluorhydroxyapatite). It acts topically. Ingesting fluoride from the water supply distributes it to all organs of the body. The teeth are the only ones that need fluoride. How much gets to the teeth? Not much. Only the fluoride that makes it back to the saliva. Putting fluoride in water to stop decay is like putting sunscreen in water to stop skin cancer.

There have been pockets of testicular cancer in adolescent males in fluoridated areas. There is no federal, or even state, regulation of fluoridation. I would suggest that any interested parties visit www.fluorideaction.net, and read The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson. Read the treatise of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (http://go.philly.com/Flouride).

Just as most dentists refuse to believe that the mercury in their dental fillings cause health problems, they been led to believe that fluoridated water is beneficial. I would like to see nothing less than a lower incidence of decay in children. After 32 years of practice, it simply hasn’t happened. Parents need to take control of their children’s diets and oral hygiene; schools need to remove soda and candy machines. Let’s not be so cavalier about putting an industrial-waste product into the water supply.

Steve Markus, D.M.D.
Haddon Heights
smarkus147545@comcast.net

Heed the warning

Re “A simple step for dental health,” Sept. 26:
Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in the water, but that does not mean it’s not a poison to humans – especially children – at higher levels. We already have fluoride in 99 percent of the manufactured toothpaste we use daily. It’s hard to find toothpaste without the ingredient.

The main reason for the reduction of tooth decay in the last 50 years is increased brushing and flossing of teeth. We can thank the dental association for putting the word out about dental hygiene, but please, please, don’t put more poisons – even at “acceptable” levels – in our drinking water.

Fluoridated toothpaste is not recommended for children younger than 2 without a doctor’s approval. Read the back of tube. My name-brand toothpaste tube ominously says: “Keep out of the reach of children under 6 years of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison control center right away.” That’s scary to even people without small children. I called poison control, and it affirmed that the warnings are there because of the fluoride. What can go wrong: heart and kidney problems, loss of calcium absorption.

I know the dental association is looking out for us, but legislating the addition of fluoride to our public water is not the way to go. Let the people decide, junk science and all. Let the Pennsylvania House know that you are against the forced addition of fluoride to water.

Edward Savaria Jr.
Erdenheim