FlorideFloride
With variances in legal language not included concerning severability should any portion be overturned:
BALLOT MEASURE: AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE USE OF THE CITY'S WATER SUPPLY TO DELIVER PRODUCTS OR SUBSTANCES INTENDED TO AFFECT THE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL FUNCTIONS OF PERSONS CONSUMING SUCH WATER
Whereas water is essential to all and the public water supply should be safe for all to drink; and
Whereas individuals vary in their susceptibility and health responses to various substances as well as in the amounts of water they consume; and
Whereas alternative methods of delivery for all substances exist; and
Whereas increased risk of hip fracture, cancer, neurological impairment, dental fluorosis and other harmful effects have been linked to fluoride in the scientific literature; and
Whereas data from the U.S. Public Health Service and the State of California show no significant difference in decay rates of permanent teeth and dental costs in fluoridated and non fluoridated areas in California; and
Whereas each individual possesses the inalienable right to choose or reject what he or she consumes; Therefore
The public water supply shall not be used to deliver any product, substance, device, element, medicine or preventative agent with the intent or for the purpose of affecting the physical or mental functions of the body of any person consuming such water.
No fluoride or fluorine-containing substance may be added to public water systems. All laws to the contrary are hereby repealed.
1. Total fluoride exposure. The fluoridation goal of delivering 1 mg (milligram) of fluoride to a child per day has already been reached, and exceeded, even in non fluoridated communities. Explanation:
The total dosage goal of 1 mg of free-fluoride ion/day for a child was adopted in the early 1940's when there was little or no other source of exposure.
The 1 mg of free-fluoride ion was to be placed in 1 liter of water, as that was the amount that a child was assumed to drink per day (The very reason for using the public water was the assumption that it would be the child's only access to fluoride). Placing 1 mg into a liter created an equivalent concentration of 1 ppm (part per million). Promoters have since incorrectly identified the 1 ppm concentration as the goal, rather than the 1 mg dosage.
2 mg per day was considered by all, including promoters, to be excessive, as it caused an unacceptable risk for dental fluorosis (the visible display of fluoride poisoning the specialized cells that make the enamel, resulting in white opaque spots, brown stains, mottling and fracture-prone teeth); thus many scientists protested that there was not an adequate margin of safety. Despite their protests, 1 mg/L was chosen as the "optimal" concentration, and a temperature adjusted 2 mg/L, or 2 ppm, was chosen for the Maximum Contaminant Level for fluoride concentration in the water.
Independent laboratory analysis now shows that fluoride is in most cola and fruit juices at concentrations of 1 ppm and up; in well known cereals at 2 to 10 times the concentration intended for our water; in products using white grape juice as sweetener or in children's juices at 3 to 7 ppm; and, because of fluoride-based pesticide residue, on lettuce at 180 ppm and raisins (that we know no child is going to scrub) at 55 ppm.
U.S. Public Health Service documents show that even in 1991, non fluoridated communities were already receiving equal to and more than the targeted fluoride dosage of 1 mg per day. Fluoridated communities were receiving an estimated 3 to 7 times the "optimal" goal.
Result: in 1986-87, 29.9 % of all children in so-called "optimally" fluoridated communities displayed the permanent visible signs that they have been overdosed (dental fluorosis). (1986-87 survey, National Institute of Dental Research)
2. Adding fluoride to the water to achieve the so-called "optimal" concentration mass medicates at a higher level than any doctor in the country following the current standard of care can prescribe. Explanation:
Although promoters of fluoridation often insinuate that children are deficient in fluoride, 98% of Europe and our own continent's professional associations have seen that adverse effects have gotten out of hand and have advised their professionals to adjust for uncontrolled exposure.
In 1995, the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the American Academy of Pediatrics, while segments of these same trade associations simultaneously continued to lobby for fluoridation, created new policy recommendations for controlled-dose supplementation, which are intended to be the substitute for fluoridated water in non fluoridated communities.
The new schedules indicate that mass medication, at the claimed "optimal" level of fluoridation, grossly exceeds the dosage that a qualified professional could prescribe, even after the professional's individual evaluation of a child for growth and development, weight, total exposure to fluoride from all sources, and individual susceptibility.
According to these new recommendations infants are to receive no additional fluoride, no matter what the fluoride level in the water; and it is not until a child reaches the age of 6 that the new prescription recommendations ever reach the excessive dosage that is thrust upon a child that consumes fluoridated tap water.
The Canadian Dental Association went even further, stating that fluoride's effect on caries is topical, rather than systemic, and recommended that if a child brushes his/her teeth twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste that they should have no further exposure to fluoride even in a non fluoridated community.
"The level of fluoride incorporated into dental mineral by systemic ingestion is insufficient to play a significant role in caries prevention." (Featherstone JD. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:31-40.
3. The hazardous waste substances used in 90% of fluoridation have never been tested, either alone in distilled water, or in combination with other chemicals and contaminants found in tap water. Explanation:
The most common substances now used for fluoridation are hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are waste products that are captured in scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The resulting toxic waste can not be diluted by 1 million or even 3 million or 10 million to 1 and dumped in the ocean or river or landfill, nor allowed to escape into the air because it would kill all the plants and animals and people. And it can't be given away because it would still be classified as a Class I toxic waste and have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon, or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium, and arsenic are also present.
But, if destined for a water district that will pay $0.35 to $0.45 per gallon for transportation, the 23% solution in industrial waste water is magically pronounced benign and shipped, untreated, to be mixed into our water.
If it was not a hazardous waste, it could have been added to salt or some other universally accessible food source, just like iodine is, more than fifty years ago. Each of us would then be free to choose for ourselves.
January 15, 2000
Dear Friends and Advocates of Safe Drinking Water and Health Freedom,
As Sponsors of the Fluoride Product Quality Control Act introduced by Assembly Member Audie Elizabeth Bock (I-Oakland) to the California State Legislature, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and California Citizens for Health Freedom hereby formally request your endorsement and support for Assembly Bill 1729.
Throughout the 50+ year-old fluoridation debate, decision-makers and resulting legislation have paid little attention to the actual fluorine-bearing substances that are added to the water.
Two studies published in 1998 and 1999 illustrate why it is crucial, whether for or against fluoridation, that we refocus our attention. One study reported a paradoxical effect that showed that exposure to low levels of aluminum fluoride delivered twice the amount of aluminum to the brain than concentrations 100 times the lower levels. At the same levels used to fluoridate our drinking water, sodium fluoride caused excessive kidney damage and lesions in the brain similar to those found in humans with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.
Aluminum compounds are commonly used as clarifying agents in tap water.
Another study, sampling 280,000 children in Massachusetts, reported a doubling of the risk of lead levels in children's blood rising above the danger level of 10 micrograms per deciliter when the hazardous wastes from the phosphate fertilizer industry are used for fluoridation, rather than sodium fluoride or no fluoride at all.
The correlation with blood lead levels is especially serious because lead poisoning is associated with higher rates of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, substance abuse, and crime.
As the substances are added to the drinking water for the specific purpose of human consumption and affecting human health, rather than treatment of the water, this bill will require that the actual substance used for fluoridation will meet the following criteria:
Assembly Member Audie Bock Needs Your Letter of Endorsement Enact AB1729.
Technical questions about this bill or the fluoridation issue may be directed to: Jeff Green, Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, at (800) 728-3833.
Your formal Letter of Endorsement containing your support for AB1729, a description of your company, association or group, and any brief particulars describing the reason for your endorsement, should be addressed to Assembly Member Audie Bock as indicated below.
Letters of Endorsement should be sent as soon as possible in order to be included in the record for the Staff Analysis presented in the committees hearing the Bill.
AB1729 was introduced on January 5, 2000. The Bill is expected to be heard in late April in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxics Materials Committee.
We ask that you notice that this bill does not prohibit fluoridation (although it is unlikely that the substances currently used in 90% of the fluoridation programs will meet these requirements without treatment).
We further request that your endorsement reflect that water is precious and that we deserve the assurance that any substance added to our water supply be properly tested for safety and effectiveness for the purpose it is added, rather than focusing on the adverse health effects or reasonableness of fluoridation.
Respectfully,
Jeff Green Frank Cuny Director President Citizens for Safe Drinking Water CA Citizens for Health Freedom
Professionals and those with company or association letterheads should send endorsements to Audie Bock. Telephone calls, faxes, and endorsements should also be sent to the Assembly members and Senators representing your own district.
Contact information for Assembly Member Bock:
Assembly Member Audie Elizabeth Bock State Capitol P.O Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249
Telephone: (916) 319-2016 Fax: (916) 319-2116
For full text of AB1729 and information call: Legislative Assistant Pamela Rasada Telephone: (916) 319-2580
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Bock JANUARY 5, 2000
INTRODUCED BILL TEXT
An act to add Sections 116412 and 116560 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to drinking water.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1729, as introduced, Bock. Drinking water: fluoridation. Existing law, commonly referred to as the California Safe Drinking Water Act, is administered by the State Department of Health Services. The act requires the department to adopt regulations that require the fluoridation of the water of any public water system that has at least 10,000 service connections according to a prescribed schedule based upon the lowest capital cost per connection. The act requires the regulations to establish the minimum and maximum permissible concentrations of fluoride. This bill would require a public water system to comply with various requirements in conducting any program of fluoridation of any public water supply, including that the program be limited to the use of a specified fluorine-bearing chemical and that no fluorine-containing substance that could be classified as a pesticide or hazardous or toxic waste by state or federal agencies be added to the public water supply. The bill would also provide that a product, substance, device, element, medicine, or preventive agent shall not be added to any public water supply for certain purposes, unless it has been tested and approved as safe, and effective for the purpose for which it is to be added, by the United States Food and Drug Administration. By adding to the requirements of public water systems that conduct fluoridation programs, this bill would impose additional duties on local agencies that operate public water systems, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 116412 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 116412. A public water system shall comply with all of the following requirements in conducting any program of fluoridation of any public water supply: (a) (1) The program shall be limited to the use of a fluorine-bearing chemical that, at the optimum concentration for addition to the public water supply, releases its total fluorine component as free fluoride anion. (2) Total release of the fluorine component for purposes of this paragraph shall be determined by testing actual potable water, including the configuration of chemicals, additives, contaminants, and pH balance with first stage and second stage disinfectants, rather than with distilled water, produced following injection of the fluorine-bearing chemical. The determination of total release shall be by analysis without the use of supplemental agents or methods employed to influence the release of fluoride from any fluorine-bearing chemical in which it still may be chemically bound, following procedures for the normal administration of the chemical in a fluoridation program. (3) The testing of actual potable water for purposes of this paragraph shall identify all compounds that are formed in the resulting water. The injected fluorine-bearing chemical shall be determined not to qualify as totally released as required if the analysis finds any one of the following: (A) A residual fraction of the injected fluorine-bearing chemical.
(B) A partially dissociated residue of the injected fluorine-bearing chemical. (C) A product of a reaction of the injected fluorine-bearing chemical or its dissociation products with some other substance in the water, whether naturally occurring or added, that does not meet all acceptable standards for human exposure according to all state and federal regulations and the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (Ch. 755, Stats. 1996). (4) The analysis of the fluorine-bearing chemical shall be performed by an independent certified laboratory capable of providing detection for the fluorine-bearing species and any product of a reaction of the fluorine-bearing chemical or its dissociation products at parts per billion. (5) The costs of the analysis shall not be borne by the public water system. Instead, any entity or person that distributes the fluorine-bearing chemical to a public water system shall be responsible for ensuring that an analysis of the fluorine-bearing chemical has been performed pursuant to this section. (b) No fluorine-containing substance that meets any one of the following criteria shall be added to the public water supply: (1) The substance is classified as a pesticide by a state or federal agency. (2) The substance is classified as a hazardous or toxic waste by a state or federal authority. (3) The substance could be classified as a hazardous or toxic waste pursuant to criteria specified in Sections 261.20 to 261.24, inclusive, of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (c) No substance that is derived from a substance specified in subdivision (b) shall be added to the public water supply. SEC. 2. Section 116560 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 116560. A product, substance, device, element, medicine, or preventive agent shall not be added to any public water supply for the specific intent of human consumption or for the purpose of affecting the physical or mental functions of the body of any person consuming the water, rather than for the purpose of making water more potable, unless it has been tested and approved as safe, and effective for the purpose for which it is to be added, by the United States Food and Drug Administration. SEC. 3. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity may not affect other provisions or applications of this act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
Here is an excellent article whose main thrust concerns the high fluoride content of tea leaves, which is bad news for tea drinkers. The fluoride content of tea leaves has risen dramatically in the last 20 years, as has the consumption of tea. Why has the fluoride content of tea leaves risen so much? The tea plants seem to concentrate environmental fluorides (water, pesticides, air pollution) in their leaves. One cup of tea now delivers 7.8 mgs of fluorides. This is at or above the danger zone for long time consumption and this is just from tea leaves, never mind all the other sources of fluoride we imbibe. This article is chock full of other interesting tidbits of info on fluoridation, and it is well written and easy to read and I highly recommend it to your attention.
*****************
Also, please remember the Press conference where Citizens For Safe Drinking Water announce their lawsuit challenging the City's fluoridation of our drinking water next Friday June 9 at noon, in the little plaza there behind where the SD City Council meets. This is an all volunteer effort and your presence will be helpful to impress the press.
*****************
Here are some quotes from the article: "Dean Burk, for many decades Chief Chemist at the National Cancer Institute, testified at congressional hearings in 1981 stating that over 40,000 cancer deaths in that year were attributable to fluoridation (33). He has said that no chemical causes as much cancer, and faster, than fluorides (34). Public health officials are quick to say that this data is not verified, which is entirely untrue, for international research as well as congressional hearings and court proceedings HAVE verified this information."
...
"Dental fluorosis (mottled teeth) is the first _visible_ sign of fluoride poisoning."
...
"The fluoride/aluminum association is of particular importance as it relates to Alzheimer's Disease. Aluminum by itself is not readily absorbed by the body. However, in the presence of fluoride ions, the fluoride ions combine with the aluminum to form aluminum fluoride, which is absorbed by the body. In the body, the aluminum eventually combines with oxygen to form aluminum oxide or alumina (53). Alumina is the compund of aluminum that is found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients. In the brain, protein binds to the alumina, and "that is the key to the plaques and tangles which are the hallmarks of this terrible disease" (54)."
...
"One of the most prominent features of preskeletal fluorosis is the extraordinary general fatigue experienced by most sufferers, a marked weakness usually linked to low activity of the thyroid gland."
Regards, Wayne Jr.
Business Editors & Health/Medical Writers
WASHINGTON D.C.--(BW HealthWire)--June 28, 2000--On June 29, 2000, in what committee staff expect to be a long day of testimony on Maximum Contaminant Levels in water for Radon and Arsenic in the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., Vice President of NTEU Chapter 280, will be seated on the witness panel to address scientific and ethical concerns for the positions and actions that various agencies have taken regarding fluoridation.
NTEU Chapter 280 is the union that represents the toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, attorneys and other professional employees at Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, Washington, D.C. The union was founded out of concern for protection of employees and ethical departures from professional standards.
Dr. Hirzy is appearing at the request of Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in response to New Hampshire Pure Water Association, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and other groups and individuals that are concerned that fluoridation mandates are being imposed without unbiased review of scientific evidence.
The corresponding oversight committee in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Science, is awaiting answers to their second round of questions to the EPA, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control, National Academy of Science, and National Sanitation Foundation in their investigation of these agencies' actions surrounding the fluoridation issue.
In the first round of questions concerning the substances that are used in 90% of the nation's fluoridation programs, the EPA stated, "EPA was not able to identify chronic studies for these chemicals;" prompting Congressman James Sensenbrenner, Chair of the House Committee on Science to reply, "I am sorry to say that EPA's answers were extremely insufficient, and as such, the investigation will continue."
Dr. Hirzy's discussion of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride along with MCL's being considered for arsenic, and already established for lead, will provide a visual contrast of how issues of fluoride are treated by EPA.
Fluoride is more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic, yet the protective measures of maximum contaminant levels for lead is 15 parts per billion (ppb), arsenic currently 50 ppb and under discussion for lowering to 5 to 20 ppb, while the MCL for fluoride is 266 to 800 times less protective at 4000 ppb.
According to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, maximum contaminant levels are now to be established in order to protect the most susceptible populations from any adverse health effects with an adequate margin of safety when ingesting that amount over an entire lifetime.
Dr. Hirzy is expected to point out that the largest study in the U.S., conducted in 1986-87, showed that 66% of the children living in fluoridated communities display the visible signs of fluoride overdose on at least one tooth in the form of dental fluorosis (opaque white spots, brown stains, striations, mottling of enamel, and fracture-prone teeth), with 30% displaying overdose on two teeth or more.
In a departure from all other established MCL's, when fluoride concentrations rise above 1/2 of the 4 milligram per liter MCL, water districts are required to warn parents that infants and young children are at increased risk for dental fluorosis; essentially suggesting that parents limit the amounts of water their children ingest or abandon the public water source.
This will be the first scientific discussion of fluoride in a Congressional hearing in 23 years. After hearing testimony of a greater incidence of cancer deaths in fluoridated communities, the 1977 House subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations ordered the US Public Health Service to have an independent contractor conduct animal studies to determine if fluoride causes cancer. The final report of the two year study did not appear for 13 years.
Dr. Hirzy is expected to recommend that the tumor slide evidence from that study be reviewed by independent pathologists with the examiners properly blinded to assure accuracy, as the previous reviews of the data resulted in wholesale downgrading of tumor classifications that originally indicated "clear evidence of carcinogenicity." That classification would halt the practice of adding fluoride to the public drinking water.
Dr. William Marcus, Chief Science Advisor for the Office of Drinking Water at that time, was fired for demanding such an independent review, and subsequently won his whistle-blower lawsuit, and compensatory damages, but the raw data has still not been reviewed by unbiased pathologists.
Other fluoride topics Dr. Hirzy will present to the subcommittee include:
Excessive and uncontrolled exposure that indicates even non fluoridated communities are receiving equal to or more than the goal of fluoridation.
Findings by three different courts in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas, after more than 40 days of testimony in one case, that the evidence indicated adverse health effects, including increased cancer risk, with exposure levels found in "optimally" fluoridated water at 1 part per million.
Revisions in professional health associations' recommendations for controlled-dose fluoride that now advise that an infant with no exposure to fluoride in the water be provided no further supplementation because of excessive exposure from all other sources; and children from 6 months to 3 years advised to receive prescriptions limited to the amount of fluoride found in one cup of fluoridated water.
Increased concern over studies published since 1995 indicating higher levels of lead concentration in the blood when the waste products from the fertilizer industry are used, kidney damage and brain lesions in laboratory animals at the same exposure concentrations as found in "optimally" fluoridated water, and double the amount of aluminum delivered to the brain at low concentrations of aluminum fluoride; especially taking into consideration the rising incidence of attention deficit disorder, autism and behavioral disorders such as crime and violence that have been associated with fluoride's presence and interaction with other elements.
Other recommendations to the subcommittee by the union of EPA professionals:
Order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future studies, rather than a substitute chemical; and that due to the fact that our protective agencies are actively promoting that each and every individual person drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals for the rest of our lives, that the silicofluorides be placed on the top of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act and is protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion for a lifetime.
Order epidemiology studies comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years, for behavioral and other disorders that are now linked to fluoride exposure.
Convene a joint Congressional committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.
Dr. Hirzy's testimony will be accessible on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Web site by selecting Hearings of the 106 Congress at: http://www.senate.gov/~epw/. The union of EPA professionals' position on fluoridation and ethics can be accessed on their Web site: http://www.nteu280.org. Questions posed to EPA, CDC, FDA, NAS and NSF by the House Committee on Science concerning fluoride can be accessed at: www.citizens.org/Food_water_safety/Fluoridation/fluoridebackgr.htm.
--30--