Kids with 'funky' teeth (because of fluoridated water)

KIDS WITH "FUNKY" TEETH (BECAUSE OF FLUORIDATED WATER)

EPA scientist J. William Hirzy, PhD criticizes EPA:

"[A]s EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride
in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was
being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA
thought it was alright for children to have 'funky' teeth..."
--J. William Hirzy, PhD (complete essay below)


BONE CANCER IN BOYS AND FLUORIDATION Eleven EPA professional/employee
unions representing 7,000 EPA employees were recently moved to ask Congress
to stop fluoridation immediately because of recently revealed epidemiologic
evidence that boys drinking water with the cumulative poison fluoride
("fluoridated" water) can suffer a 700% greater risk of osteosarcoma than
boys not drinking water with the poison in it.

THE KICKER: The fluoride poison works TOPICALLY (if at all); it doesn't even
need to be in the water. People who want the poison for their teeth can
brush with fluoridated/poisoned toothpaste. (Fluoridated toothpaste is
indeed poisoned. There is a fluoride poison warning on every label. To
read the warning, go to www.aquasafe.us.)


TAKE ACTION

1. Sign the petition at http://www.powalliance.org/petition/index.html

2. Leave a comment on the petition.


SUGGESTED COMMENT...

Members of Congress should demand that CDC and state attorney generals
immediately stop fluoridation.

CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry/ATSDR "work[s] with states...to prevent exposure to
hazardous substances from waste sites."
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/DRO/r 1.html

"Fluoridation" is the hazardous substance hydrofluorosilicic acid (w/
arsenic and lead) - from phosphate fertilizer waste sites/scrubbers - being
injected into America's water supply. (Some municipalities are using "pure"
poison - sodium fluoride.)

If CDC and state attorney generals simply did their jobs, the poisoning of
America's drinking water could end immediately without Congress having to
hold hearings.

END suggested comment




Onward to EPA scientist J. William Hirzy's essay which came to me via Dr.
Paul Connett's FAN Campaign Bulletin...



http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....8bf-81922a560d
5e

Freedom to Report Real News

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Why the EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation

By Dr. J. William Hirzy, 9/7/2005 10:47:21 AM

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of
Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the
National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing
fluoridation of drinking water supplies.

Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists,
lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here
in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like
most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members
had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in
tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of
water fluoridation.

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for
fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he
was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that
EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK,
EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect,
not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it
was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride
at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children
develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the
effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at
a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was
unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the
fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA
by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial
involvement period in detail.\1

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on
the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control
exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion
of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These
hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney
function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer,
reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.
First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers \2 showed that rats given fluoride in
drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in
the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to
when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals,
or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born
hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young
or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and
co-workers \3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research
group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by
the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the
brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially
depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get
fluoride.

Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others \4 reported on the
brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in
drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation
groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was
seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These
results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride
that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride
than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it
takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of
humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma
that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the
body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are
exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are
experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood
that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the
"optimal" level of 1 ppm.

In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from
China\5,\6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride
than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about
5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's
interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland
produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal
clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke\7
has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its
production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition
causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as
well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed
below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of
menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated
Kingston \8.

From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are
particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology
studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies
(dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just
mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking
Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local
union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer
risk issue\9 . The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over
the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and
not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr.
Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is
available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the
only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology
Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given
sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in
which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed),
particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests
showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger"
mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and
data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 ,
Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was
his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating
cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of
them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review
of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997 \14. Five
epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in
fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. \15a, b, c, d, e. Crippling
skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking
water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard
setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense
Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there
has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries
preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications
on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest
and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National
Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17
years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and
filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and
partially fluoridated communities.\16. The latest publication \17 on the
fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and
Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental
health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh,
N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible
sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially
important\18. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the
largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until
he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's
effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My
Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data
were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries,
especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical
public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on
fluoridation.

Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water
fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the
pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g.
fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which
that substance affects dental health \19, \20, \21. However, if the
concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit
bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those
concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian
tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not
only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show
that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues
at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from
fluoridated tooth paste\22. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity
seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern
over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or
not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder),
but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the
uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that
are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride
pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay
media\23, that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22
percent of America's children now have dental fluorosis, is just one
indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12
percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated
Kingston New York\17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to
continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of
over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity
findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a
vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via
ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from
the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA's risk control
methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The
Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per
kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with
reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this
methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for
fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of
fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of
Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone.
This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the
basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide
un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear.
Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method
for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the
use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the
toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry\24.

This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees
Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D.
For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.

END NOTE LITERATURE CITATIONS



1. Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency
and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W.
Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of
Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61.

2. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten,
P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995)

3. 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).

4. 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).

5. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao,
L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)

6. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi,
J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7. Effect of fluoride on the
physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994).

8. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after
ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T.
JADA 52 296-306 (1956).

9. Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. 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 ODW.

10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats
and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

11a. Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA
synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster
embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984).

11b. Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in
cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139
193-198 (1984).

11c. Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive
sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without
S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation.
Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and
B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

11d. An increase in the number of Down's syndrome babies born to younger
mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46
(1985).

12. 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).

13. Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National
Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of
Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991).

14. New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle,
B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J.
Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997).

15a. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fractu U.S. white women
aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, T.P. et al.
JAMA 264 500-502 (1990)

15b. Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah's elderly population. Danielson,
C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992).

15c. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white
women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study.
Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2
617-626 (1992).

15d. Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly
[letter]. Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273
775-776 (1995).

15e. Water fluoridation and hip fracture [letter]. Cooper, C., Wickham,
C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991).

16. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national
survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990).

17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green,
E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47.

18. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J.
Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 1-16 (1997).

19. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the
anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from
swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71
(1999).

20. Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature
focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral
Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999).

21. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride.
Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999).

22. Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health
and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991).

23.Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street
Journal Dec. 21, 1998.

24. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to
Leslie Russell EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as
low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.

OTHER CITATIONS (This short list does not include the entire literature on
fluoride effects)



a. Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated
with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42
109-121 (1994)

b. Ameliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in
silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T.
Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988).

c. Milk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed.
Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986).

d. Maternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R.,
Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54
263-269 (1988).

e. Effects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological
evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J.,
Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985).

f. Fluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and
Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987).

g. Fluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int.
Rep. 3 701-705 (1979).

h. An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and
spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J.,
Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28
(1981).

i. The effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human
fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan,
Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988).

j. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat
cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988).

k. The crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase.
Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988
(1984).

l. Intracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents
facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons.
Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986).

m. Fluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the
literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd
(London) (1937).

n. Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic
administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for
dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad.
Sci. 825 152-166 (1997).

o. Allergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273
(1993)

END EPA scientist J. William Hirzy's essay
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....8bf-81922a560d
5e


Again, EPA scientist J. William Hirzy's essay which came to me via Dr. Paul
Connett's FAN Campaign Bulletin...

Copied to: J. William Hirzy, PhD via