Posted on 11/22/2002 7:33:34 PM PST by FormerLurker
The Washington Bureau editor of AD 
Impact, the monthly publication of the Academy of General Dentistry, wrote last year that supporters of fluoridation have had an "unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a negative light," and that organized dentistry has lost "its objectivity - the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion."
So you post the opinion of one guy, how about the entire agency?
Your cut and paste bombs cannot change the fact that you STILL haven't posted any epidemological studies showing the dangers of fluoride.
And I would point out that those same scary signs are on my chlorine container that I use for my pool. Yet nobody complains when chlorine is added to the water.
Fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and overall health.. it doesn't need to be added to our water and we may be taking unnecessary risks by doing so. - Dr. Hardy Limeback, a leading Canadian fluoride authority, former fluoride advocate and long-standing consultant to Canadian Dental Association. (read his rationale)
Wrong again.
No, that is what THEY say:
Not having a lot of luck, are you?
That's right, the ENTIRE WORLD is in on this coverup. Everybody is keeping their mouth shut, or doing false research to make fluoride look good. Yep, that's brilliant.
Once again I ask you, if this stuff is so toxic WHERE ARE THE SICK PEOPLE?!?!
It's DIFFICULT to think of cavity-free teeth without thinking of fluoride. We have long been told that fluoride is good for us. It was added to Toronto's drinking water in the mid-1960s; dental associations endorsed its addition to toothpaste. But what are we to think when Canada's top pro-fluoride authority says he believes we should not be putting it into our bodies?Dr. Hardy Limeback, biochemist and professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto, told the Sunday Star last week that parents should keep fluoride away from children under three. He added that he doesn't think adding fluoride to water is necessary and may be risky.
Limeback's change of mind is based on numerous studies, published in highly respected journals, showing strong links between fluoridated water and: weakened, brittle teeth and bones (conditions known as dental and skeletal fluorosis); cancer, lowered intelligence and Attention Deficit Disorder, early aging; genetic damage; birth defects; auto-immune disorders; and more.
Limeback is not the first fluoride expert to survey the evidence and recant. In 1980, Dr. John Colquhoun, chief dental officer of Auckland, New Zealand, examined children's dental records to help promote fluoridation. To his surprise, he found fabricated statistics and errors - but no advantage at all from fluoridation. He eventually campaigned against fluoride.
In 1973, Dr. Richard Foulkes, then consultant to the British Columbia health minister, recommended mandatory fluoridation. It never happened, but almost 20 years later, he examined dental records and discovered that the teeth of children from non-fluoridated areas were as healthy as those of children where fluoride was added to water.
Says Foulkes today: "A child's brain is vulnerable to damage from fluoride even before birth and the result can be lowered IQ ... Fluoride in drinking water may react with aluminum, to cause Alzheimer's disease."
Over 1,100 scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denounced fluoridation while their employer, the EPA, continued to support it. Former EPA scientist Dr. Robert Caxton, speaking on CBC TVs Marketplace in 1992, called fluoridation "the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.
Very few countries fluoridate. Several, such as Sweden, Denmark and Holland, have banned fluoride. Vancouver and Montreal never bought into fluoridation. (Limeback's research shows that Torontonians have double the fluoride build-up in their hip bones as Montrealers.)
So why do we hold to the notion that fluoride is not only harmless but good for us?
Most public health officials and dental organization -including those paid to endorse fluoride products have never accepted the studies indicting fluoride and appear to be standing firm even in the wake of Limeback's change of position. (He was a chief fluoride adviser to the Canadian Dental Association.) The CDA, the Ontario Dental Association (ODA), the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), and Health Canada still support fluoridation. Why? In some ways, it's not entirely clear.
Over 1, 100 scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denounced fluoridation while their employer, the EPA, continued to support it. Former EPA scientist Dr. Robert Caxton, speaking on CBC TVs Marketplace in 1992, called fluoridation "the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time".
Summary and Conclusions
NAEP's early efforts to define a code of ethics for professionals directly influenced the EPA professionals' Union's own efforts to affect the ethical climate at EPA. In 1988, the Union drafted a Code of Ethics but encountered resistance from EPA management. Nine years later an agreement was reached, although it still does not provide concrete procedures for addressing ethical issues, nor sufficient protection for individuals identifying ethical crimes. The Union believes that an understanding of the unethical nature of the fluoride drinking water standard will confirm the urgent necessity for significantly improving the existing agreement between EPA professionals and management.With regards to the fluoride standard, we found:
- The PHS, who was charged with providing advice to EPA, had a conflict of interest.
- The Committee selected by the PHS to provide advice to EPA was biased.
- The deliberations of the Committee were not honestly presented in their draft report.
- The draft report was altered by unknown individuals without prior (or subsequent) approval of the Committee.
- Individuals who knew of fraud and deceit in the report did not report their observations to the appropriate authorities.
- EPA management ordered the support document developed by EPA professionals to be rewritten in conflict with the known facts.
- Important calculations and observations were omitted from the selection of the final standard for apparently political purposes, namely, to support a long-standing public health policy.
We are unable to present all the details of scientific fraud that occurred in this regulation because of the limits of space in this forum (e.g. the fact that 90% of the scientific literature showing that fluoride is mutagenic were omitted from the scientific support document.) Hopefully, some of your elected representatives in Congress will become aware of these accusations and begin an investigation. The public needs to see how politics influences science in Washington, and how public health can take a back seat when power and prestige are more important than ethical considerations.
That statement (1,100 scientist) in wrong, and you probably knew it before you posted it. Your grasp on this issue is slipping with every post (and my rebuttal, do you still question the AGD or CDA?).
Actually, this refers to a union within the EPA, the National Federation of Federal Employees:.
Moreover, within a few months of the issuance of the "press release," Local 2050 of the NFFE ceased operations, with its membership being absorbed by Local 280 of the National Treasury Employees' Union (NTEU).[17] While Local 280 of the NTEU has never published an official position on fluoridation, several former officers of NFFE Local 2050 imply that the NTEU supports the NFFE action. The activists have printed articles and letters for antifluoride Web sites under the NTEU banner.
The fluoride in drinking water standard, or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL], published by EPA in the Federal Register on Nov. 14, 1985, is a classic case of political interference with science. The regulation is a fraudulent statement by the Federal Government that 4 milligrams per liter (mg/ 1) of fluoride in drinking water is safe with an adequate margin of safety. There is evidence that critical information in the scientific and technical support documents used to develop the standard was falsified by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect a long-standing public health policy.
EPA professionals were never asked to conduct a thorough, independent analysis of the fluoride literature. Instead, their credentials were used to give the appearance of scientific credibility. They were used to support the predetermined conclusion that 4 mg/l of fluoride in drinking water was safe.
Ethical misconduct by EPA management included the following: they ignored the requirements of the law to protect sensitive individuals such as children, diabetics, or people with kidney impairment. Contrary to law, they made the criteria for considering health data so stringent that reasonable concerns for safety were eliminated. Data showing positive correlations between fluoride exposure and genetic effects in almost all laboratory tests were discounted.
By selective use of data, they fit science to the desired outcome. They reported to the Administrator data demonstrating that dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect, but then hid this information from the public when the Administrator decided to call dental fluorosis a "cosmetic" effect. The National Institute for Dental Research had warned EPA that admitting dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect would be contrary to the long-standing policy of the Public Health Service that fluoridation at 1 mg/l is totally safe. EPA had already admitted in the Federal Register that objectionable dental fluorosis can occur at levels as low as 0.7 mg/l.
EPA management based its standard on only one health effect: crippling skeletal fluorosis. In setting the safe level at 4 mg/l, however, they ignored data showing that healthy individuals were at risk of developing crippling skeletal fluorosis if these individuals happened to drink large quantities of water at the "safe" level of 4 mg/l. EPA's own data showed that some people drink as much as 5.5 liters/day. If these people ingested this amount of water containing 4 mg/l of fluoride, they would receivea daily dose of 22 mg. This exceeds the minimum dose necessary to cause crippling skeletal fluorosis, or "20 mg/day for 20 years" as stated by EPA and the Public Health Service. This situation is made worse by the fact that there are additional sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste, tea, mouthwash, etc. Even more unsettling is the fact that there is no sound scientific basis for the 20 mg/day threshold. The threshold is probably lower.
There is evidence, ignored by EPA, in a preliminary study by Dr. Geoffrey Smith, that exposure to fluoride at 1 mg/l in drinking water over a long period of time may calcify ligaments and tendons causing arthritic pains, and may be partially responsible for the alarming increase in cases of repetitive stress injury.
EPA management also relied upon a report from the Surgeon General which they knew was false. This report claimed to represent the conclusions of an expert panel (on which EPA was present as an observer) when in fact the concerns of this panel for the effects of fluoride on the bones of children,for its effects on the heart, for dental fluorosis, and for the overall lack of scientific data on the effects of fluoride in U.S. drinking water were deleted. There is a report in the press that these changes were made without the knowledge or approval of the expert panel.
EPA accepted the falsified report from the Surgeon General's office and asked a contractor to turn this into an "assessment." The contractor dutifully collected only literature that supported the report. The report was submitted for public comment, but was never altered to incorporate the volumes of information sent in by world class experts, and by ordinary citizens who had taken the time to look for all of the appropriate literature. Any opinions contrary to the report were dismissed. It can truly be said that there is no final report, because the substance of the public comment was virtually ignored. What we have is actually a "Draft" stamped "Final"!
After the regulation was published, NFFE Local 2050 spent a great deal of energy attempting to get this issue resolved. We did not want any part of such a charade. In 1986, after numerous letters to EPA management which were ignored, NFFE Local 2050 prepared an amicus brief in an unsuccessful suit by the Natural Resources Defense Council to overturn the fluoride regulation. Our message began to be heard in August of 1988, when Chemical & Engineering News, a weekly magazine of the American Chemical Society, published a 17 page feature story on the fluoride issue, focusing in part on our union's efforts. In 1989, with prodding from Mr. Reilly's staff, we had an exchange of letters and some productive meetings with Mr. Bill Whittington, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, who unfortunately has now left the Agency.
In one of these letters, we detailed for Mr. Whittington, our recommendations for conducting an assessment of the risks from fluoride exposure. We grouped them into three categories: (1) focus on the scientific endpoints the law requires us to examine which the previous effort did not, (2) bring in scientific experts from around the world who have published extensively on various aspects of the risks from fluoride exposure, and (3) create an independent scientific assessment committee with no conflict of interest to peer review the report.
We also recommended that all of this should be done under the direction of EPA scientists with expertise in the various disciplines that an understanding of fluoride risks requires: carcinogenicity, mutagenicity,metabolism, etc.
We would like you to take these recommendations seriously. We do not need another exercise in political expediency. And we do not need to see EPA scientists attacked by their managers, as is now occurring , because they reveal unpleasant facts . A number of recent publications in prestigious journals show there is overwhelming evidence that the aged population of the US is experiencing a significant increase in hip fractures as a result of the reckless practice of fluoridation. The senior toxicologist who brought this and other negative information on fluoride to the attention of EPA management is being threatened with dismissal.
It is about time that science prevailed on this subject, and past errors were corrected. This will not happen by using the so-called "Frank Young" report or the National Academy of Sciences to review his report. This will only result in the same whitewash that emerged from the Surgeon General's office. The NAS has already indicated that they will produce the party line, even if they can't substantiate it. In a recent series of letters between the NAS, Ms. Darlene Sherrell, and Sen. Graham of Florida, the NAS was forced to admit that it could not document the derivation of the chronic effect level for crippling skeletal fluorosis. As already mentioned, crippling skeletal fluorosis is the single health effect upon which the fluoride in drinking water standard is based.
EPA should reconsider their current plans to duck major responsibility for assessing fluoride risks and should let EPA professionals do the job that the American public who pays their salaries expects of them. The seriousness of the coverup on this issue requires that we go back to square one, evaluate the primary literature and let the chips fall where they may. A budget commensurate with the size of this task needs to be developed, even if it means going to Congress for a special appropriation. We ask Your support in ensuring that the above recommendations are taken seriously.
All of this kind of argues against a coverup.
You know, with all this websurfing you are doing, why can't you dial up some epidemological studies showing increased disease or death in communities with fluoridated water?
Where are you finding this stuff if there is a coverup? And what does the opinion of a few people mean when considered against the majority of scientists that support fluoridation?
That is what The Toronto Star had reported, but you are right, in that SOME of those are lawyers and engineers. I only found that in after looking into it..
Comments on Reevaluating the Fluoride in Drinking Water Standard
My name is Dr. Bob Carton, I am Vice-President of Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees. Our union represents the 1100 scientists, lawyers, and engineers at EPA Headquarters. We are the professionals who are responsible for providing the scientific basis for EPA's regulations. We have an obviously important stake in ensuring that the scientific process used in assessing risks from chemicals is sound and that those who conduct this assessment are not forced or coerced in any way into supporting predetermined conclusions.Your grasp on this issue is slipping with every post (and my rebuttal, do you still question the AGD or CDA?).In this context, I am here today to alert you to the fraudulent nature of EPA's previous efforts on fluoride and to request that you take an active role in insisting that EPA conduct an unbiased, in depth investigation of the risks posed by exposure to fluoride, not a whitewash as occurred in 1985. Let me explain to you what happened in 1985.
You are no better than the people who allowed Hitler to exterminate Jews. You should know full well what is happening, yet you continue to spin like a top....
Wow, you are desperate! Where are the dead bodies?
You should know full well what is happening, yet you continue to spin like a top....
You just admitted that the article you posted is wrong, and you accuse ME of spinning?
YIKES!
Studies, where are the studies?????
Oh, and while you are at it, I'm still waiting for you to back up your slander that I'm supporting fluoride just to make money.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mr. Rick Matthew
Safe Water Association
500 South Main Street
Fond du Lac, WI 54935
Dear Rick,
Your letter to Congressman Petri was very good. I would like to pass along a few tips that have gotten some responses from people who were previously profluoridators. I like to use the approach that first states what everybody has agreed upon in the U.S. and progress to the more controversial.
First it is agreed by all people who think themselves knowledgeable about fluoride that the effect on teeth is limited to children three years or younger. That means everybody else who is three years and one day or older is exposed unnecessarily.
Second I reiterate that when using the measures of filled, partially filled and missing teeth – comparing fluoridated and nonfluoridated water supplies the world over, including the U.S.A., – there is either no significant difference – or more often, people using fluoridated water have significantly more caries. That even very small amounts of fluoride cause brittle, hard to repair teeth.
Third, I cite the studies that demonstrate that the rate of hip fracture is at least double amongst people 65 or older in fluoridated areas – including the most recent studies less than one year old. That people who imbibe fluoridated water are twice as likely to be hard of hearing at age 65 or older.
Fourth, I state that the act of fluoridating water increases lead exposure especially to children because of two facts – a. The fluoride added to drinking water often has up to 400 mcg of lead per liter and b. the corrosive action of fluoride extracts lead from pipes and solder joints increasing lead exposure of the young. (Babies up to 3 months absorb 16 times as much lead per unit body weight than adults. Black babies and children because of genetic makeup absorb significantly more lead than white babies.)
Fifth, I tell the story of the two large prospective studies (the best kind of epidemiology evidence available) completed in New Jersey and New York State that determined the incidence of osteosarcoma (almost always fatal) in men under 18 years of age increased by 6 to 8 fold. That an increase of this magnitude is prima facia evidence of a real ongoing effect. I remind them that one of President Kennedy's nephews had the disease.
I find that people are simply not willing to believe that our government would condone the addition of a compound to the water supply that was not efficacious. This is why in my opinion it has not been possible to convince enough people of conscience to review the fluoride story. You must rememeber that the National Academy of Science released a report that sort of said fluoridation was OK. They do not know that the members handpicked for the panel were known to be profluoridation. They were not present when the pathologist from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology stated that any bone or tooth structure that contains fluoride is weak, crumbling and highly undesirable. they were not present when the board calculated that the amount of fluoride ingested daily was far higher than previously believed. They discovered that soft drinks including, Coke, Pepsi and SevenUp were made by diluting concentrate with fluoridated water. That KoolAid, baby formula etc. also would have fluoride. they were informed that these exposures were not considered by EPA when setting the current standard.
They did not allow me to explain that the levels of fluoride found in the bones of rodents who had osteosarcoma was lower than the level found in human adults exposed to allowable levels of fluoride. I was not permitted to explain that with the exception of fluoride, no other compounds including radioactive compounds, have been able to produce osteosarcomas in rodents.
I hope these facts will help.
Very truly yours,
William L. Marcus, Ph.D.
Senior Science Advisor
Office of Science and Technology
Then exactly why ARE you supporting fluoride Tom?
I hardly think that is a valid observation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.