From the Calgary Regional Health Authority:
No. More than 50 epidemiological studies have been conducted to evaluate the relationship between fluoride concentrations in drinking water and cancer. The U.S. Public Health Service reviewed the results of these studies and concluded there was no credible evidence for an association between fluoride in drinking water and the risk of cancer.
Professor Sheldon Roth, Departments of Pharmacology & Therapeutics and Anaesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, stated in the 1998 Report of the Expert Panel for Water Fluoridation Review that "There is no conclusive evidence that levels of fluoride found in fluoridated water are associated with greater incidence of cancer."
*****snip******
Several studies were initiated in response to these results. In Alberta, 1970 -1988 rates of osteosarcoma in Calgary (non-fluoridated) were compared with Edmonton (fluoridated - 1967). There were no differences observed in the cancer rates. Similar studies were conducted in New York State, New Jersey counties, Wisconsin, Ontario, and an international study analyzing bone cancers in US, Canada, and Europe. All these studies concluded that there was no association between osteosarcoma, or other cancer risk and fluoride in the drinking water.
After reviewing the epidemiological studies, a number of national and international commissions including the National Research Council Subcommittee on the Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride also concluded there was no association between fluoride exposure and increased cancer risk in humans.
Reference:
City of Calgary, Calgary Regional Health Authority. Report of the expert panel for water fluoridation review - Executive Summary. March 1998.
Cook-Mozaffari P. Cancer and fluoridation. Community Dental Health. 13, Suppl 2, 1996.
Hrudley, S., Soskolne, C., Berkel, J., Fincham, S. Drinking water fluoridation and osteosarcoma. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 81,Nov/Dec 1990.
National Research Council. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride - Executive Summary. Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1993.
U.S. Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks - Executive Summary. Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs, 1991.
Former NIH (National Inst. of Health) scientist opposed to fluoride
Statement by James B. Patrick, Ph.D. at the Joint Congressional Committee on Health and Appropriations Against the Inclusion of Fluoridation in the Preventive Health & Health Services Block Grant, Held August 4, 1982.
"A number of scholarly volumes and numerous technical articles have been written showing the biochemical and toxicological hazards of deliberately exposing the population to continuous dosages of such a potent chronic toxin as fluoride. I cannot summarizes them in the time of space at my disposal here, but will confine myself to sketching three points. 1. Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide, which means that it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses. This characteristic of fluoride has long been known and accounts for the opposition to fluoridation of such eminent scientists as Sumner (co-author of Sumner and Myrback, The Enzymes, which was the Bible of enzymology for an entire generation); Laubengayer, also of Cornell, and a leading authority on all aspects of fluoride chemistry; Theorell and Von Euler, both Swedes and both Nobel Prize winners for work in enzymology; Waldbott, one of the countrys foremost allergists who first described penicillin allergy; and a number of others. This enzyme toxicity is the principal cause of the very low margin of safety involved in fluoridating water. A concentration of about 1 part per million is recommended for fluoridation whereas in several countries severe skeletal fluorosis has been documented from water supplies containing only two or three parts per million. In the development of drugs, even for life-threatening diseases, we generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) of the order of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what has been proposed for public water supplies. 2. Because of this well-known toxicity, the vast majority of civilized nations with advanced standards of public health have rejected fluoridation and in most cases prohibit it. The Swiss Ministry of Health studied fluoride administration for years but never adopted it and it is now prohibited: a canton can not put fluoride in its water under any circumstances. In Sweden the government sought the opinion of the Nobel Medical Institute, one of the most prestigious in the world. The Institute recommended against fluoridation, based largely on the toxicity I have described above, and Swedish water is not fluoridated. In a similar way the French government consulted the Pasteur Institute; that Institute strongly recommended against fluoridation and France remains unfluoridated. West Germany experimented with a few limited local fluoridation projects and then dropped the whole idea. Denmark adopted fluoridation a number of years ago, but then sharply reversed itself and now strictly prohibits the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. The only nations that I know of that have advance standards of public health and permit fluoridation are the U.S., Great Britain, and a few of the British Dominions. The reason seems to be that dentists campaigned vigorously in the English-speaking countries very early and got fluoridation adopted because of its claimed dental benefits. But the opposition of fluoridation is not concerned with dental effects nearly so much as whole body toxicity. Dentists are not trained in toxicology or enzyme biochemistry and are in no position to assess the public health hazards of fluoridation. In all of the countries that have rejected fluoridation it is conspicuous that biochemists, physiologists, pharmacologists, and enzymologists have been consulted and listened to. 3. Over 20 years ago the U.S. public health authorities who were pushing fluoridation admitted that raising the level of fluoride in the drinking water much above one part per million, or otherwise increasing the fluoride intake of the population, was hazardous. But since the introduction of fluoridation in the United States the average fluoride intake has risen sharply. Canned goods prepared with fluoridated water have elevated fluoride content because of concentration. Marier and Rose first demonstrated the significant rise in total fluoride burden, and later Jerard and I studied the question in more detail and concluded that most people are already receiving more fluoride than the public health guidelines permitted. But Jerard and I did our work when fluoride toothpastes were only beginning to be used, and fluoride mouthwashes had not yet come on the market. It is clear that fluoride intake is rising year by year, and this is a serious matter. When Jerard and I did our work Rapoport had already shown the increase in mongoloid births associated with fluoride intake, and Waldbotts work on fluoride allergies was becoming widely known. Since then the Indian, Chinese, and East German work on skeletal fluorosis has made it plain that this insidious ailment can easily masquerade as intractible arthritis if physicians are not looking for it, and the statistical association of heart disease and fluoridation of soft water has been shown. Most recently, the massive Burk-Yamouyannis survey has revealed an association between cancer and fluoridation that is a good deal more convincing than some of the more widely publicized associations such as saccharin, benzene, etc. For these three reasons, as well as for a number of others that I have not attempted to cover here. I strongly advise against the legislature of this Commonwealth having anything to do with fluoridation. It is a scientific disgrace that a well organized lobby of the American Dental Association ever managed to stampede American legislators into ignoring the highly technical but very cogent objection to fluoridations." |
||||
Dr. Hirzy, EPA Sr. Scientist, Testifies before Congress
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 280
JUNE 29, 2000 Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. Our members include I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then. Summary of Recommendations 1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewers independent determinations be reported to this Committee. 2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime. 3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders. 4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves. National Review of Fluoridation
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a "cosmetic" effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Childrens bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water. Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure. In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means. Cancer Bioassay Findings The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation. We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the "review commission" members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings. Brain Effects Research Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work. Fluoride as a Protected Pollutant "...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride..." In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter. Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received. We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances. We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis. Findings of Fact by Judges In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland New Zealand wrote the following about the case: "In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary... "Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation." In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: "This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health." Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: "[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man." The significance of Judge Flahertys statement and his and the other two judges findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified. Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind. I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled "Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water. Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas). We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases. Hydrofluosilicic Acid We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation. Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions. Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions. NOTE: A record of all presentations made at the hearing on the Safe Drinking Water Act can be found at http://www.senate.gov/~epw/stm1_106.htm#06-29-00
CITATIONS 1.Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E, Eklund, S.A. and Burt, B.A. J. Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997). 2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992). 2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services.1991: F1-F7. 3.Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995) 4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] N. Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990) 4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991. 5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994). 7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden. URL: 8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O. Box 76082, Washington, D.C. 20013. 9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt B.A., Keels ., Heller KE. J. Dent. Res. 2000 Feb;79(2):761-9. 10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on childrens intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996) 12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 13. Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998). 14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z.Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998). 15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983. 16.Transcript of proceedings - Surgeon Generals (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD. 17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. and Morin, P. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law. 19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. and Coplan, M.J. Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999). 20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 1-16 (1997). 21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. 22.. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990. |