Posts Tagged ‘department’

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/orange-county/article169291917.html

A group of protesters brought their concerns about fluoride to OWASA’s meeting Thursday, even thought no one was there to listen.

Fluoride Free Chapel Hill/Carrboro members had planned to petition against fluoride at the Orange Water and Sewer Authority’s board of directors meeting. The meeting was canceled Aug. 10 when OWASA staff told the board there wasn’t any reason to meet on Aug. 24.

The fluoride critics showed up anyway to oppose OWASA’s plan to restart fluoridation of Chapel Hill and Carrboro’s drinking water.

The policy is medicating people without their consent and is adding a harmful neurotoxin to the water, the critics said. They cited suspected effects, such as lower intelligence, thyroid and bone damage, arthritic symptoms, cancers and reproductive problems.

Corey Sturmer began researching fluoride after experiencing dental fluorosis: damage to tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride. OWASA has an agenda, he said, and doesn’t want to hear from critics or its their policy.

“Psychologically, people have been hit over the head for 50 years with the idea that this is good for you, so our biggest challenge is getting the people to really recognize how significant this is,” Sturmer said.

Read more…

Advertisements

See Also: My letter to the Trump Administration Re: EPAs Involvement in Water Fluoridation

By Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation.

We believe this lawsuit is an unprecedented opportunity to end the practice once and for all in the U.S., and potentially throughout the world, based on the well-documented neurotoxicity of fluoride. You may read the official complaint here. According to FAN’s attorney and adviser, Michael Connett:

“This case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’ — meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment.”

Industry, legal and environmental observers following the EPA’s implementation of the new TSCA law have pointed out that a lawsuit1challenging the EPA’s denial of our petition would provide a test case for the agency’s interpretation that petitioners must provide a comprehensive analysis of all uses of a chemical in order to seek a restriction on a particular use.

Legal experts have suggested the EPA’s interpretation essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21 petitions impossible to meet, making the outcome significant for all U.S. residents and public health or environmental watchdog groups.

Lawsuit Background: EPA Served With Citizen’s Petition

On November 22, 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The petition includes more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health.The full petition can be accessed here, a shorter eight-page summary here and our press release here.

We presented the FDA with a large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S. children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the agency with evidence showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed and, accordingly, any risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary.

We believe an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk. On February 27, 2017, the EPA published their response.2 In their decision, the EPA claimed:

“The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”

As many independent scientists now recognize, fluoride is a neurotoxin.3 The question, therefore, is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what dose. While EPA quibbles with the methodology of some of these studies, to dismiss and ignore these studies in their entirety for methodological imperfections is exceptionally cavalier, particularly given the consistency of the findings and the razor-thin margin between the doses causing harm in these studies and the doses that millions of Americans now receive.

EPA’s own Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlights the importance of having a robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive. FAN presented the EPA with over 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g., reduced IQ), pointing out that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American children now receive.

Typically, this would be a cause for major concern. But, unfortunately, the EPA has consistently shied away from applying the normal rules of risk assessment to fluoride — and it has unfortunately continued that tradition with its dismissal of our petition.

Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides citizens with the ability to challenge an EPA denial in federal court. For too long, EPA has let politics trump science on the fluoride issue (see examples). FAN welcomes having these issues considered by a federal court, where scientific evidence has a better chance of being weighed objectively.

To accompany our lawsuit, FAN is offering a new DVD and a comprehensive campaign flash drive package. The DVD features the video, “Fluoride and the Brain,” in which Michael Connett explains that fluoride’s ability to lower IQ in children is just the tip of an iceberg of over 300 animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic.

We have also made a comprehensive collection of campaign and educational videos available on a single flash drive for a limited time. It also includes our EPA petition and supporting documentation. This is a must-have for every fluoride-free campaigner’s toolkit.4  Another must-have is the book “The Case Against Fluoride,” by environmental chemist and toxicologist Paul Connett, Ph.D., which contains a comprehensive science-based argument for the end to artificial water fluoridation.

Winning this lawsuit will require a full team effort, and we want you to feel a part of that team and a part of this moment in history. Please consider playing a larger role in this potentially fluoridation-ending lawsuit by making a tax-deductible contribution.

New Study Quantifies Fluoride’s Potential to Lower IQ in Children

Since submitting our citizen’s petition to the EPA, we have learned even more about the threat to the next generation. Some children in the U.S. may be consuming enough fluoridated water to reach doses of fluoride that have the potential to lower their IQ, according to a research team headed by William Hirzy, Ph.D., a former senior scientist at the EPA who specialized in risk assessment and published an important risk analysis in the journal Fluoride last year.5

Current federal guidelines encourage the addition of fluoride chemicals into water supplies to reach 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Hirzy followed EPA risk assessment guidelines to report: “The effect of fluoride on IQ is quite large, with a predicted mean 5 IQ point loss when going from a dose of 0.5 mg/F/day to 2.0 mg F/day.”

Many children in the U.S. commonly consume these levels of fluoride within this range from all sources (i.e., water, food, dental products, medicines and air pollution). Hirzy explains the significance of this study:

“The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride. Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.

One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day. Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe.”

Dr. Bill Osmunson, FAN’s interim director, noted that this risk analysis adds further weight to the petition submitted to the EPA by FAN and other groups in November to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals to drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act.

FAN’s Persistence Pays Off: US Government Funding Neurotoxicity Studies

FAN progress isn’t limited to the legal world. Our relentless effort to get the U.S. government to take fluoride’s neurotoxicity seriously is also beginning to pay off in other ways. For many years, American regulatory and research agencies have failed to finance studies seeking to reproduce the many studies undertaken abroad that have found harm to the brain (over 300).

When toxicologist and pharmacologist Phyllis Mullenix, et al., published their groundbreaking animal study6 on fluoride and animal behavior in 1995, she was fired from her position as chair of the toxicology department at the Forsythe Dental Center. That sent a chilling message to U.S. researchers — research on fluoride toxicity is a “no-go” area. But that is changing. Now, with the U.S. government funding several important toxicology studies, this should encourage other Western researchers to get involved:

There is a new National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded fluoride/brain study.7 Our Canadian friends are extremely excited by this research funding to Christine Till and Ashley Malin, the co-authors of the important study that found a correlation between fluoridation and increased ADHD rates in the U.S.8 This could definitely be one of the most important developments in water fluoridation to date.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is in the process of completing a rodent study using low levels of fluoride exposure. However, we have concerns over the consultation process NTP had prior to when this study was undertaken (see “Vigilance Still Needed” at end of this article).

Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Harvard School of Public Health, is leading an ongoing study of fluoride and intelligence among a group of schoolchildren in China. Grandjean published the preliminary results of this study in the January-February 2015 issue of Neurotoxicology & Teratology.9

A National Institute of Environmental Health (NIEHS)-funded human epidemiological study titled “Prenatal and Childhood Exposure to Fluoride and Neurodevelopment” is investigating the relationship between fluoride and IQ among a cohort of children in Mexico. A summary of the study10 is available online.

An NIEHS-funded animal study, “Effects of Fluoride on Behavior in Genetically Diverse Mouse Models,” is investigating fluoride’s effects on behavior and whether these effects differ based on the genetic strain of the mouse. The principal investigator of the study is Dr. Pamela Den Besten. A summary of her study11 is available online.

The NIH is funding a study investigating the impact of fluoride on the timing of puberty among children in Mexico. This study is pertinent to the assessment of fluoride’s impact on the pineal gland’s regulation of melatonin. The preliminary results of the study were presented at the 2014 Independent School Entrance Examination ISEE conference and can be accessed online.12

Though not funded by the U.S. government, Jaqueline Calderón Hernandez, Ph.D., Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico, is currently working with Diana Rocha-Amador, Ph.D., on three studies on fluoride neurotoxicity:

1.An examination of the cognitive effects from fluoride in drinking water

2.Estimating the global burden of disease of mild mental retardation associated with environmental fluoride exposure

3.Investigating the impact of in utero exposure to fluoride (via drinking water) on cognitive development delay in children

Rocha-Amador is also examining the impact of fluoride on thyroid hormone levels in pregnant women, and published a fluoride/IQ study in 2007.13

Vigilance Still Needed

We still have to be vigilant to make sure that those determined to protect the fluoridation program don’t skew the results. For example, it is worrying that the NTP specified that an animal study should be conducted at 0.7 ppm — which is a ridiculous provision for an animal study on fluoride. For example, it is well-known that rats need a much higher dose of fluoride in their water to reach the same plasma levels in humans.

Moreover, it is standard practice in toxicology to use much higher doses in animals to tease out effects. To conduct experiments on animals at expected human doses would require a huge number of animals, which would be cost prohibitive. These studies also raise a significant question for those who continue to promote fluoridation in local communities and legislatures around the world.

“What primary scientific studies (not bogus reviews conducted by pro-fluoridation agencies) can you cite that give you the confidence to ignore or dismiss the evidence that fluoride damages the brain as documented in over 300 animal and human studies (including 50 IQ studies)?”

As shown by its support for these new neurotoxicity studies, our own government has acknowledged the risk fluoride poses to our children. If proponents cannot provide an adequate scientific answer to this question, then fluoridation should be halted immediately, and should under no circumstances be initiated.

National Fluoridation Stats Show Tipping Point Has Been Reached

Progress is also being made on the political front. U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) fluoridation statistics for the U.S. have been released for 2014,14 and they show exactly why the fluoridation lobby has been pouring more money and resources into promoting the practice and fighting our efforts: WE ARE WINNING!

For the first time in nearly 40 years, the percentage of the U.S. population served by community water systems receiving fluoridated water decreased, from 74.6 percent to 74.4 percent. The percentage of the U.S. population receiving optimally fluoridated water (natural and artificial) also decreased, from 67.1 percent to 66.3 percent. Also decreasing:

  • The number of water systems providing fluoridated water (natural or artificial)
  • The number of water systems adding fluoride
  • The number of water systems providing naturally “optimal fluoride” levels

Momentum Continues to Build Thanks to Citizens Like You

More than 460 communities throughout the world have ended existing fluoridation programs or rejected new efforts to fluoridate either by council vote or citizen referendum since 1990. Since January 2016 alone, we’ve confirmed that at least 33 communities with nearly a million collective residents voted to end fluoridation, bringing the number of victories since 2010 to at least 225 communities,15 representing approximately 6.5 million people.

Most of these victories were the result of citizens organizing local campaigns and voicing their opposition to public officials, with many working in coordination with FAN or using our materials to educate their neighbors and local decision makers about the serious health risks associated with the practice. Some of the latest victories in the U.S. and abroad include:16

Dear Durham Against Fluoride Readers,

This is an urgent message concerning the public water fluoridation program in the Triangle area.  We NEED YOU to sign this petition (whether you live in Orange County or not). This will be presented to the local Orange Water and Sewer Authority board this coming THURSDAY MARCH 23, 2017 to immediately stop all actions to resume public water fluoridation in the wake of the recent public health crisis this past February.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN PETITION AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION IN CHAPEL HILL / CARRBORO 

To recap, here is an abbreviated  chronology of events, many of which can be found in video form on this website:

  • In 2012, citizens first put OWASA on notice that public water fluoridation is wrought with legal, ethical, medicinal, and practical problems and should be stopped immediately.
  • December of that year OWASA organized a slanted, closed panel of “experts” who were both PRO-Fluoride which lead them to vote on continuing the practice
  • In 2013, additional petitions were filed over the course of many months to legitimately examine the issue, while OWASA attempted to “deal” with such citizens without formally addressing the issue.
  • In the summer of 2013 OWASA voted AGAIN to continue public water fluoridation and encouraged us to consult with the county commissioners if they were so inclined to change the policy.
  • In 2014, we did just that and found an equally bureaucratic and non-critical examination of the facts.  The county health director and county commissioners did nothing & fluoridation continued.
  • In February of 2017 OWASA “accidentally” set the fluoride feed pumps to 8X the normal pump speed and left them on for 3.5 hours.  When it was discovered, the water treatment plant was shut down, and subsequently a water main broke which left the community without safe running water for 2 days.
  • Later that month, OWASA heard from citizens concerning the water disaster, and a full 90% of the respondents including two former board members were in staunch opposition to the public water fluoridation program.  OWASA did not address any concern specifically as they wanted the water disaster and the fluoridation issue to be considered in a mutually exclusive vacuum.
  • The next OWASA meeting with public comment, even more citizens arrived to speak against public water fluoridation and OWASA’s negligence, but OWASA still would not address the issue head on and reserved the right to “examine or not examine it.”  In the same meeting, OWASA admitted Fluoride binds to lead and enters the water system and voted unanimously against my petition for a public referendum on the public fluoridation issue.
  • Then, OWASA held an impromptu meeting at their community room where they would decide “if we would examine, or not examine the public water fluoridation issue again.”  The UNC dental school was obviously commissioned and sent a bunch of their lackey’s including Rebecca King who testified in Durham & Chapel Hill on behalf of the Oral Health Section of the Department of Health and Human Services back in 2012 to promote Fluoridation, but was fired by DHHS in 2013.  Citizens suspect OWASA contacted the dental school because they were losing the argument at every meeting both in numbers and in logic.
  • OWASA then voted AGAIN to resume “normal” fluoridation protocols despite majority public sentiment in opposition.
  • OWASA is holding a meeting on the 23rd of March where they will announced their planned date to “resume fluoridation” ostensibly after they have “fixed” the issues which lead to over-fluoridation in the first place.
Dear President Elect Donald J Trump, the Trump family and the new Trump administration,

Congratulations on your momentous landslide victory in the 2016 presidential election.  Against all odds your team has out-maneuvered the most powerful and corrupt political and media establishment which has had heretofore an iron grip on the minds of the public.  You experienced first hand the collusion, dirty tricks and uniformity of action against a rising populist sentiment in America.

You intimately witnessed how the DC propaganda machine is able to manipulate large swaths of the electorate to believe a false narrative, and I’m sure you have been frustrated by the gullibility of many voters to do so.

Now that you have won the election battle I note that you have quickly begun the transition process and all the ensuing machinations of “assuming office.”  Before you know it, your cabinet positions will be filled and you will have to set about fulfilling your campaign promises, which to use your own words is to “make America Great again.”

Surely I know that every brand of politico, lobbyist, industrialist and well meaning citizen are pitching their ideas to you and your team – lord knows there is a lengthy list of things to do in order to begin to reverse course, and everyone seems to have their own ideas about how best to achieve that.   From monetary to foreign policy, it is all a great big beautiful mess and you have taken on the unenviable role of trying to fix it.

Easier said than done, I know!

But the key question is, how does one prioritize which issue to tackle first? 

As a builder you know well that in any new construction the most important step is to construct a solid foundation first and foremost.  The rest of the process is only made possible by having a level and properly supported foundation.  In cases of renovation, sometimes you must repair the foundation in order to revive a property that has fallen into disrepair.

Similarly, the outward manifestation of society’s behavioral ethics, intellectual achievement and moral direction as a whole is built upon the foundation of our “group intelligence quotient” which is simply the average intelligence quotient of a civilization’s individual constituents.

One should expect that the more enlightened a society is, the more ethical and constructive they will be.

In business and in life I am sure you have discovered yourself that low IQ is directly related to project delays, corruption, back stabbing, financial mishandling, mistakes, confusion, unnecessary aggression, dishonor and every other negative attribute of human being.  This is self evident because any enlightened individual or society with a high intelligence would realize the diminishing returns of such behavior patterns and immediately reorient them for their own self interest.

In light of this revelation, it becomes apparent that your success depends less on your own personal persuasiveness, cunning or intelligence but much more heavily on the reciprocal intelligence level of the rest of the individuals who constitute the civilization you are attempting to uplift.

Consequently in order to effectively and comprehensively deal with such myriad political quandaries one must first address the foundational problems of society (Group IQ), before attempting to fix any of the dependent structures for them to have proper and sustainable support.

Otherwise, the incalcitrant minds of a dumbed down electorate will not be able to properly perceive the truth and will revert back to debased, unengaged, selfish and programmed behavior patterns.  Under such psychological conditions the public will still be easy for the corporate media to manipulate and it will be difficult at best to get anything of great magnitude done.

Luckily there is a feasible, remarkably fast and effective way for a new administration such as your own to boost America’s group intelligence from the top-down, which will greatly open the hearts and minds of everyone involved and subsequently accelerate the collective intellectual and emotional evolution needed for you to properly address the major policy issues which have come to characterize American apathy, degeneracy and serfdom in the last few decades.

Coincidentally such a singular fix easily fits into your existing contract with the American voter, under Section 2.7:

SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure.

Source: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contract/

While there are many issues with our water supply and other environmental infrastructure perhaps the most influential on the group IQ of our nation is the well known state health policy of “Public water Fluoridation.”

Over 70% of American municipalities make a regular practice of spending millions of dollars purchasing untested, hazardous waste byproducts of the fertilizer industry and distributing the IQ reducing agent through their public water supply. (See: Harvard study Impact of Fluoride on Neurological Development in Children)

Consequently, America has seen an average intelligence quotient stunted over the same period of time it should have been growing due to improved living standards, which is undoubtedly influenced by this persistent and largely unobstructed policy. (See: Are we becoming more STUPID?)

The amount of value this one policy has destroyed is impossible to evaluate, because it has unquestionably prevented significant economic production including inventions, innovations and interpersonal acumen that we can only imagine but not measure in real terms.

Perhaps more concerning than the deleterious effect of water fluoridation on our average intelligence is the well known problems it causes with our thyroid health.  The purpose of your thyroid gland is to make, store, and release thyroid hormones into your blood. These hormones, which are also referred to as T3 (liothyronine) and T4 (levothyroxine), affect almost every cell in your body, and help control your body’s functions (including emotions, reproduction, and intelligence!).

We all know how unbalanced hormones can make people act crazy, and this is precisely what is happening when our society ingests tap water on a regular basis that is laced with the halogen Fluoride.  The thyroid absorbs the fluoride, instead of the iodine it needs and is consequently prohibited from serving it’s proper function in the biology of our people. (See: Clinical Studies on Fluoride’s effect on the Thyroid)

Despite the unfortunate fact that most people are still living under the self interested mantra of the state dental lobby that “Water fluoridation is a significant public health achievement,” many of them are nevertheless acutely aware that our water infrastructure is not altogether safe – with the Flint lead crisis and other recent controversies the public temperament towards the public water authorities has never been more open to change.

Fortunately, we can capitalize on the fact that public water fluoridation and overexposure to lead are in fact closely related since the addition of fluorosilicates to the city water infrastructure is admittedly known to have a corrosive effects on brass joints that results in the leeching of lead into the tap water and blood stream of America (See: Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.)

With this one issue a Trump administration has the opportunity to do immense foundational repair to the underlying intellectual and bio-physiological deficits which make enlightened thought patterns a scarcity in the halls of government and elsewhere.  In my estimation there isn’t a single issue that could more effectively change the overall psychological ether in this country than reversing this long standing attack on the literal operating system of the American people.

Reversing public water fluoridation would immediately result in a softening of our hearts and a sharpening of our minds which would accelerate our opening to enlightened transcendental ideas that can give birth to a new epoch of political, socio-economic and legal reforms.

Here are my specific recommendations on how a Trump administration could maximize their use of the office to influence this situation and change the overall calculus with respect to the state sacrament of public water fluoridation.

  1. Use of the Bully Pulpit: Hold a  press conference at the White House and outline the legal, financial, moral, and scientific reasons why the people should demand their municipalities change the policy.
  2. Leverage the Appointee Power of the POTUS seat; recommend the senate approve a new commissioner of the FDA who will enforce existing drug laws which prohibit the prescription of a medical agents without the proper medical license and informed consent.

The FDA’s definition of a Drug/Medication is; “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”  [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].  The only stated purpose of public water fluoridation is to PREVENT tooth decay, which is considered a disease of the tooth. Under current FDA law, city council members are therefore criminally liable for continuing public water fluoridation, but no court will ever hear the case because they too are inculcated by the effective fluoridation propaganda of the dental lobbies and misguided state health representatives – the FDA commissioner should put all participating municipalities on notice to come into compliance with the existing FDA laws or face commercial liability for any damages that can be argued in a court.  When activist law firms see the opening to make money via class action lawsuits that hold weight, the city councils will come into compliance very quickly.

3. Use the Health and Human Service Apparatus: In this video presentation I cover the little known history of our Department of Health and Human Service agency which has its roots in a secret biological weapon research arm of the Department of War.  It was later in the 1950’s that the HHS apparatus began to work with renown propagandist Edward Bernays and the Democratic Rockefeller operative and proginitor of the Research Triangle Park Oscar Ewing to implement a nation wide PR campaign that lead to a national public fluoridation policy.  Use your appointee power and executive action to either cut funding to the HHS or embed citizen patriots there who understand the historical role the HHS has had in attacking American health so that they can use the levers of power to turn the spigots off.

4. Re-examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s role in the perpetuation of the public water fluoridation scheme.  In my two part interview with long time EPA toxicologist and fluoride activist William Hirzy, who blew the whistle and testified before congress on this issue in the early 2000s, he explains how the EPA is responsible for covering up the health dangers in order to maintain the status quo.  In my personal experience I have found some cities will rely on the EPA’s allowable environmental fluoride concentration level to suggest that the amount the city adds to the water is therefore safe, but when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary the EPA says that they don’t regulate municipal water supplies. We need to stop the onion of bureaucracy and inter-agency collusion which leads to a perpetuation of our most pressing problems.

Mr. Trump, if you are for real, then please give consideration to taking these 4 straightforward recommendations to make a monolithic change that will have the largest return on investment of any single tenant in your 100 Day contract with voters.

Thank you for your time,

Corey Sturmer

http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

September 14, 2014

Part I:

During the 5th Annual Citizen’s Conference on Fluoride  I was fortunate enough to get an exclusive 45 minute discussion with world renowned risk assessor & decades long anti-fluoride activist Dr. William (Bill) Hirzy Ph.D. Hirzy is well known in the anti-fluoride circles thanks to his keystone contributions as a whistleblower from within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters.

Hirzy’s most famous contributions to the anti-fluoride movement came when he was acting as senior vice president of the EPA union of scientists and professionals.

According to Hirzy this union was initially organized to protect EPA staff members from unethical pressure by EPA management. In other words – let them do their jobs as risk assessors, etc. properly! They later became aware of the risks of public water fluoridation & began working within the EPA to try & do something about it.

Dr. William Hirzy Former Risk Assessor at the Environmental Protection Agency

Sad to say that such a union would even be necessary in a government agency who makes such bogus & impossible claims that they protect human health & the environment, but unethical pressure from high ranking bureaucrats is no big surprise to us is it? The union, with Hirzy as spokesman, earlier this century appealed to a Senate subcommittee on the reality of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity & its many other latent adverse health effects, which are negatively affecting the entire daydreaming American public as a result of the government’s 60 year old public water fluoridation policy. Dr. Hirzy’s role as risk assessor, is ostensibly to warn the government of possible financial or criminal risk by evaluating certain policies – yet his advices heretofore have fallen on deaf ears! See Hirzy’s powerful statement below, from the Year 2000:

It is the EPA union’s collective testimony combined with the 2006 National Research Council’s 400+ page report on Fluoridated drinking water which makes the government’s continued inaction on this issue now irrevocably criminally negligent.

As you hear Dr. Hirzy explain his role as risk assessor, we can easily extrapolate that this union behaved almost like an immune system antibody, deployed within an otherwise healthy system to identify & defend against foreign invaders (unethical pressure aka corruption). That would be the traditional roles of each group anyway, if we believe that the EPA was formed to legitimately protect the environment. But what we see over time is an increasingly politicized federal agency, easily manipulated by rank, paygrades & external organizations, constructed hierarchically with a lack of traditional checks and balances . This has obviously motivated the white hats, who actually wish to perform a legitimate civic duty, to organize to better resist the embedded junta bureaucrats.

In America this Union concept can be considered the “check” on power. What we discover through Bill’s testimony however is that the system itself was corrupt & consequently the tables turned! It was the union who was treated like a virus infecting the EPA with truth & Dr. Hirzy walks us through many of the dirty tricks, administrative shifts & railroading attempts to prevent the truth from getting out. Although a valiant effort, the organization was proven not strong enough as we listen to Dr. Hirzy tacitly admit that it only took veto action by an ever changing & growing administrative landscape within the EPA to thwart the Union, which brings us to where we are today – the same place we were 50 years ago after fluoride was successfully implemented in the first place!

This interview however strays far from the minutia of fluoride politics & instead takes on a more personal character as Bill walks us through his own life experiences waking up to the fluoride deception while embedded within big corporate & governmental giants like Monsanto and the EPA. Unbeknownst to me, Dr. Hirzy had previously been arrested for protesting the construction of nuclear power plants in the midwest. This led not only to his ousting from Monsanto & his eventual hiring at the EPA, but the now famous theoretical physicist Michio Kaku had interestingly come to his defense at this time in the 80’s.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is the clear bias Bill describes within the bureaucracy of the EPA, contrasting it with his experiences at Monsanto which would on occasion express the same pattern of promoting & rewarding those who maintain the status quo while shunning those who challenge it. Bill seems to have had a lifetime of struggles due to his predisposition to tell the truth.

It is especially interesting that Bill’s specialty is in risk assessment which is to determine the amount of financial risk a corporate or governmental entity is exposing themselves to by selling or promoting a particular product/policy. This has obvious implications for Monsanto who’s chemical & genetic productions have the potential for vast profits, accompanied by serious financial risk should a product have an unintended detrimental health effect. Big institutions pay Big money for Bill’s intelligence because the cost of his salary pales in comparison to the potential lawsuits they might otherwise be exposed to.

But the nature of Bill’s work from the perspective of the EPA is even more damning of the EPA as an institution, than compared to a profit driven company like Monsanto, given their charter to actually PROTECT human helath & the environment, accompanied by the fiat regulatory power it is able to wield.

One should definitely question the true motives of said agency when someone like Bill, who is trying to save the EPA’s ass as much as he is trying to alert the public, gets completely ignored.

Hence the EPA have, for more than 10 years now, become criminally negligent by refusing to change the maximum allowable contamination level of water supplies with respect to fluoride, which consequently allows the various agencies under the EPA (Health & Human Services, Water Companies, City Councils, Health Boards, etc) to continue adding toxic waste to the public drinking water without criminal or federal legal repercussions.

Actually this was the essence of the 5th annual citizen’s conference on fluoride which culminated in an official petition to the EPA to answer an amalgamation of groundbreaking fluoride science which was presented to them by Dr. Hirzy & an army of other scientists, medical professionals & concerned citizens.

To understand the gravity of Bill Hirzy’s testimony on the dangers of fluoridation and the dark political manifestations which maintain the policy, one first has to fully grasp the true melange of federal, state & local bureaucracies who stand in the way of common sense, civil rights & the science. Given my own personal experience trying to enlighten local politicians on the

The multi-headed hydra that is big government

dangers we face, and thus end fluoridation, I will attempt to break it down as best as I understand it so that you may comprehend what a monumental task it is just to overcome the bureaucracy & generational indoctrination.

By the end, you may agree that the only way to kill this hydra is to make sure we get all the heads.

  1. First – the buck stops with your local city council. Like it or not ultimately the politicians who hold positions there have seized power & are the ones administering fluoride to the population by way of majority vote. Thus – they have the power to end it. But if you challenge them, they will defer to the water management department or some similar agency who is tasked with repeating propaganda hatched by Edward Bernays & the former Federal Security Agency; now known as the Department of Health and Human Services
  2. The water company will claim that they are only following orders from the state department of health and human services, who in the 20th century were the unapologetic propagandists promoting the mass fluoridation policy in the first place & still claim that it is one of the top 10 public health achievements of the last 100 years. They will deny they are violating any laws because they are not over 4 parts per million, EPA’s maximum contaminate level for that substance set originally in the ironically named “Safe Drinking Water Act
  3. If you challenge them on the basis that this constitutes forced medication of the drinking water, they claim it is not a drug, it is a mineral/nutrient & they are only “adjusting” the levels to one that is “optimal” for preventing tooth decay. This is based on the junk science produced in the 1930’s which was funded by the aluminum industry to promote fluoridation.
  4. Depending on your geography, the actual levels of fluoride in the groundwater might be quite low, which provides the impetus for city councils to perform a public service by “bringing up” the concentration level of fluoride to one that the public health department claims is “Optimal” for preventing tooth decay. Luckily, there is a long line of fertilizer & aluminum companies who have excess fluoride they need to dispose of. This is how they get away with adding fluoride while simultaneously not taking accountability for the fact that it is adding for medicinal / preventative purposes
  5. When you challenge the public health board that this is illegal & a crime given all science showing such, they will say they are regulated by the EPA’s 4.0ppm Maximum Allowable Contaminant Level & since they are only fluoridating at .7-1.1ppm, no crime committed!
  6. Rinse, Repeat.

Part II:

When asked what is driving these deliberate obfuscations of the truth by the various corporate & governmental structures, Bill responded, “I don’t go there.”

For More Real News for Real People visit: http://www.bullcitybulletin.com

One of the most prominent Nazis, a man who helped organize the logistics for mass deportation of millions of Jews right into internment & extermination camps during the Holocaust, once stated in defense of these obvious war crimes that he could not accept a guilty charge…why?:

It was my misfortune to become entangled in these atrocities. But these misdeeds did not happen according to my wishes. It was not my wish to slay people. . . . Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations of war service and my oath of allegiance and my oath of office, and in addition, once the war started, there was also martial law. . . . I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did. . . . At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate.

-Adolf Eichmann defending his systematic genocide during his 1961 war crimes trial

In a nutshell Adolf refused to hold himself accountable & asked society to do likewise because he was simply “doing his job.”  As his subsequent execution demonstrates, “following orders” is not an adequate defense in a logical & ethically consistent society.

It is not my intention to draw any parallels between the scale of atrocities committed under Nazi Eichmann to the issue of “community water fluoridation,” but I raise this significant historical reference to help illustrate the fact that doing Wrong despite common sense, using your employment as a shield to deflect persecution, is not an adequate defense & deserves punishment.  I only wanted to preface this special report with a bold example of this very same mental disease which I have come to realize is endemic in corporate government, and in fact here in Durham North Carolina.

In this spirit I present this exclusive hidden-camera footage of Durham resident & incredibly talented sculptor, Robert Mihaly, who is depicted below filing an assault & battery charge against Tom Harden at a police substation for fluoridating the public drinking water.

If that name does not ring a bell, Tom Harden is the unassuming Superintendent of Williams Water Treatment Plant, also known as the one individual most responsible for the actual fluoridation of our water in Durham County.

Part I

Sure Tom Harden is a nice fellow & simply doing his job. But in all truth it is by Tom’s hands, and his hands alone, that the toxic waste Hydrofluorosilicic Acid  is deliberately added to Durham’s drinking water.

He chooses to do it.

The most tragic reality is that Tom would be the first to tell you that he simply does as City Council orders him to do.  I know as a matter of personal experience because Tom said almost exactly this off camera when he was kind enough to give me a tour of the water plant in 2013…

But is “just doing your job” good enough? 

  • If I were to add rophenol to a female’s drink at the bar, I could go to jail for a number of different assault charges.
  • If I were a doctor & I administered medicine without informing the patient I could lose my license and/or face legal action.
  • If I inject someone with a vaccine against their consent I could be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon
  • But…If I get paid by Durham City Council to drug the water supply, that is not only allowed but somehow ethical?

Basic, elementary ethics dictate that drugging anyone against their consent & without their foreknowledge is completely wrong, no matter who is giving the orders or who is doing the deed.  Not only is community water fluoridation self evidently unethical but it also happens to be illegal under North Carolina general statutes & FDA drug laws. As we have discussed many times, it is being administered as a preventative medicine in a blanket manner through the water supply, without full disclosure or prescription & according to NC G.S. § 90-18 the CITY OF DURHAM is in direct violation of practicing medicine without a license.

This is just a stunt!

Is it?

Since the powers that be fully rolled out the national fluoridation program in the late 1950’s, a plumb 70% of American counties now add some form of fluoride to their public drinking water supplies.  For North Carolinians that percentage is more like 85% +.    In Durham County, the form of fluoride used is Hydrofluorosilicic Acid which is extracted from the wet pollution scrubbers at fertilizer mines owned by a company called MOSAIC.  This is tacitly admitted on Durham’s website!!

A little more digging gets you the material safety data sheet, from which any competent high-schooler could glean that this is not a safe material to drink.

The motivations behind such a devastating rape of a public resource as inherently ours as the air we breath, will be speculated & pondered upon for eons into the future. However valid postulating about the conspiracy might be, what is more prudent to do at this particular juncture, is to admit fully to ourselves that we already lost the hearts & minds, so we can go on changing them.

Once that reality sets in, you have to act. 

I get e-mails all the time from readers who want guidance on how they can get fluoride removed in their area.  I am flattered some readers believe I have a silver bullet but if success is measured by whether your city still fluoridates the water or not, I am a complete failure!   I am always happy to give advice & share what I have learned in this experience but the 2014 reality is that despite all of my efforts since 2011, Durham has so far successfully passed the fluoride hot-potato in such a manner as to deny wrong doing, avoid prosecution,  – AND – continue fluoridating the water!

What I have learned & what I hope this video will demonstrate is that all that is required, is for each person to do something.  Follow through.  Whatever it is – it could be a conversation, an e-mail, a donation.  It doesn’t matter.

For those who want change; it is up to each and every single one of us, independently from one another, to listen to our soul & decide what it is we are inspired to do…Then to just do it! 

Part II

Want to follow up on the police report?

Call Durham County Record’s Office to get a Copy of the latest report: (919) 560-4423

Call Durham’s Non-Emergency Line & ask for the status of the report using ref. # 14-007642: (919) 560-4600

BoTaylorPoliceReport

 

Editor’s Note: For those of you reading this who currently live in the “Triangle area” of Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill North Carolina, I implore you to pay special attention to the historical context presented in this 1993 article by Murray Rothbard. Why? Because one of the main characters highlighted in Rothbard’s excellent essay on the history of water fluoridation in the United States has a particular relevance to your current circumstance, which should not go unnoticed.

Specifically I refer to one, Oscar Ewing, who you will find not only played a critical role in the nationalization of community water fluoridation, but eventually retired to Chapel Hill, NC where he busied himself buying the land which later became Research Triangle Park.  This is a vast subject which deserves its own examination independently of the fluoride issue, one which I intend to dissect at a later time.

by Murray N. Rothbard

This essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Yes, I confess: I’m a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of “right-wing kooks and fanatics.” It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry “cancer” even more absurdly than the boy cried “Wolf,” who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation’s water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids’ thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation’s socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the “right-wing kook” image?

THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION

The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official “15-year” study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: “Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?” [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own “scientific study,” by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by “popular demand” for fluoridation; as we shall see, the “popular demand” was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left’s backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation’s central organization of “anti-Communist liberals” (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation’s establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the “father of public relations.” Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called “The Original Spin Doctor” in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator’s 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation “creeping socialism” and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation “in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.” (Bette Hileman, “Fluoridation of Water,” Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the “mechanism which controls the public mind,” which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that “Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…” And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, “either with or without their conscious cooperation,” will “automatically influence” the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that “it is wholesome to eat bacon.” For, Bernays added, he “knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians.” (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add “dentists” to the equation, and substitute “fluoride” for “bacon,” and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation’s reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as “universal fluoridation.”

DOUBTS CUMULATE

Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies’ teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as “spurious.”

Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government’s own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.

Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding “equivocal evidence” that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of “a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages,” especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in “non-fluoridated” counties.

In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were “spurious.” Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, “value-free” commission.

The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of “world-class experts” to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride’s safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children’s skeletons, and potential heart damage.

The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might “modify” the findings, since “the report deals with sensitive political issues.” Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel’s most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government’s alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no “scientific documentation” of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.

In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even “low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.” JAMA concluded that “it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation.”

Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that “no evidence” was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that “further studies are required.” But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: “The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water.” Presumably, they did not conclude that “optimal” meant zero.

Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government’s study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing “equivocal” about his conclusion.

Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus’s warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.

Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand’s most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country’s top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.

As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist “promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists.”

WHY THE FLUORIDATION DRIVE?

Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.

Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth’s crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?

The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, “Mr. Pittsburgh,” and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people’s teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that “the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved.” Instant science!

The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid’s teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation’s water.

One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that “fluoride is fluoride” becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.

There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process “ALCOA-socialism.” The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.

Ed.: See also, from 2005, Fluoride Follies by Donald W. Miller, MD.