“Fluoridation… is an attempt by industry to camouflage their deadliest pollutant, with government officials and Madison Avenue advertisers beating the drums. The fluoridation empire is like a castle built on quicksand.”
Gladys Caldwell, author, “Fluoridation and Truth Decay”, 1974
Continuing the way we’ve been doing it in our past two alerts (for those who may not be aware), text shown in black font below is the transcription of statements made by each speaker during the Joint Health Committee meeting on October 5, 2015 regarding water fluoridation in Arkansas, and text shown in red font shows Secure Arkansas’ written comments about each speaker’s statements after the fact. The blue text comments are from Sandra Young, MD.
– – – – –
(30:38 of full audio file)
House Chair Kelley Linck: Let’s see. Representative Sorvillo, you are recognized for questioning.
Rep. Jim Sorvillo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Smith, many consumers have chosen to use bottled water. Do bottlers add fluoride to their products, and if not, what overall effects has bottled water had on tooth decay?
(Not all bottled water is created equal. Exercise caution before you purchase, and do your homework first. Bottled water labels can be vague. Regardless of which bottle water you buy, you MUST read the label on the bottle. A large percentage of bottled water is likely to be fluoridated public water.)
ADH Nate Smith: That’s also a very good question. It’s a challenging question to answer completely, though, because different water bottlers have different practices, and there are actually different standards set for bottled water than there are for drinking water. Our drinking water standards in the U.S. are very high. There are a whole host of compounds that are tested for on a regular basis to insure a very high quality of our drinking water. The water that you get in bottles is… has some different requirements but not quite as extensive. And I’ve got a… Jeff is an expert in this area because it’s his team who assure the quality of our drinking water, (now addressing Jeff Stone) but if you could address some of those questions.
(Mr. Smith is addressing Mr. Stone, an engineer for the Arkansas Department of Health, NOT a toxicologist, to our knowledge.)
ADH Jeff Stone: Some of bottled water will come from a spring source, and that company might own that spring, and use it, or blend it with city tap water. (Can you see why we need accurate and proper labeling of ingredients and/or content? How are we to know what’s in bottled water? Some labels are very vague. Read some yourself!) A whole lot of bottled water actually is repackaged water from community water systems, and if it’s repackaged water from community water systems, then that water will have the same amount of fluoride in it that the city, community has. So… the bottled water is a FDA food product, and they put labels on it that are designed to be attractive from a marketing standpoint. I’ve not noticed that they advertise whether their product has fluoride in it or does not have fluoride in it. But if I had to guess, and it would just be a guess, I would say at least half or more of the bottled water you buy originated from a public water source. [This is a high estimate! Aquafina even admits to using tap water! (It would depend on where the water was bottled and if the system there used fluoridation as to how much fluoride would be in the bottled water. – S. Young MD)
*The FDA regulates bottled water but gave up any oversight responsibilities of the water fluoridation chemicals (additives). In 1979, EPA executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish and clarify areas of authority in controlling additives in drinking water. FDA has regulatory oversight on food additives, which includes bottled water, and EPA has regulatory oversight on direct additives in public drinking water supplies.”
One of several submitted letters to the FDA, EPA, and USPHS by Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D., Chemistry, discusses the roles these agencies play in regulating the fluoridation chemicals and many others aspects of the fluoridation dilemma.
“The EPA labels fluoride in water as a ‘contaminant’ and provides levels of this contaminant that should not be exceeded in order to prevent significant, widespread adverse health consequences. However, the EPA does not and has never regulated the injection of fluoride compounds into water supplies, and this is amply proven by statements published repeatedly by the National Research Council in its report “Fluoride in Drinking Water, a Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards”, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006, referred to herein as 2006 NRC Report. In the summary on page 1, second paragraph of 2006 NRC Report, the U.S. EPA is correctly stated to be required to establish exposure standards for contaminants in public drinking water systems that might cause adverse effects on human health, including the maximum contaminant level goal (at which no adverse health effects were expected to occur from fluoride contamination), the maximum contaminant level (the enforceable standard), and the secondary maximum contaminant level (a guideline for minimizing, but not preventing, significant cosmetic effects caused by drinking fluoride-containing water). Fluoride is regulated as a contaminant by the EPA, but the EPA does not regulate fluoridation, the intentional addition of fluoride into water for perceived benefit. The EPA has no means to monitor for side effects when used as an intentional ingestible prophylactic.
On page xiii line four of the 2006 NRC Report, it is stated that these EPA listed exposure values are not recommendations for the artificial fluoridation of drinking water, but are guidelines for areas in the U.S. that are contaminated with, or have high concentrations of naturally occurring, fluoride. The goal of the EPA MCLG is to establish an exposure guideline to prevent adverse health effects, and the goal of the SMCL is to reduce the occurrence of adverse cosmetic consequences from exposure to fluoride. On page 14 of 2006 NRC Report, it is written that EPA’s drinking water standards are restrictions on the amount of naturally occurring fluoride allowed in public water systems, and are not recommendations about the practice of water fluoridation. Excessive contamination prevention is the goal of the EPA here; it is not to monitor side effects, subtle or otherwise, or any surmised effectiveness of fluoride compounds when used in drinking water as oral ingestibles.”
Rep. Sorvillo: Thank you.
House Chair Kelley Linck: Representative Bragg, you’re recognized for questioning.
Rep. Bragg: Thank you Mr. Chair. Two questions. The cost figure you gave us, a dollar versus 38, has it been calculated what the total cost to the state is? If it’s costing $38 per non-fluoridated patient or dental service… (Secure Arkansas already addressed this issue in our first two rebuttals here and here. Even if that figure of $38.00 were correct, which it’s NOT, that doesn’t go very far toward dental care.)
ADH Nate Smith: Just to clarify, is your question: “How much is it costing the state for non- fluoridated communities?”
Rep. Bragg: Right.
ADH Nate Smith: I don’t have those cost estimates. Medicaid may have some. But, not everyone is on Medicaid, so we’d have to get that from a variety of sources. Again, when studies have been done comparing community to community, depending on exactly which age group you’re looking at, at least a 25% reduction in dental costs in community to community. The study I mentioned from Louisiana in 1999 looked at specifically Medicaid-eligible children ages 1 to 5 showed a reduction of 50%. (Secure Arkansas would like to see that study! A reduction of 50%??? See our comment below.) We looked at two communities here actually, it was our previous public health dentist that looked at two communities: one that was fluoridated, and one that wasn’t, and he found a 50% decrease in dental costs in the fluoridated community. (Again Secure Arkansas would like to see this study! Where in Arkansas? 50%?) Again there are many other factors… you know poverty levels, how… how well people brush their teeth, et cetera, can affect those dental costs. But, you know, that’s kind of a range there. (Again: Fluoridated Water Does Not Prevent Tooth Decay”. This article shows that fluoridation is not helping to prevent dental decay. At the same time, it will show how the Dental Trade Organizations have used flawed studies to convince dentists that fluoridation was useful. Here is a snippet from the article including 6 important points:
“Also, please remember that the original studies by H. Trendly Dean on fluoridation which led to the decision to allow fluoridation of municipal water supplies
Were worthless by his own criteria.
Did not consider other minerals in the water.
Did not consider the differences between “natural fluoride” (e.g., CaF) and fluoride waste products (e.g., NaF).
Only reported his chosen selection of data — a subsection of the data gathered.
Had little or no statistical analysis.
Included no safety experiments except for dental fluorosis.”
Here’s a link to a recent article from Dentistry Today, August 15, 2015 entitled “Study Review Yields Doubt on Fluoridated Water’s Effectiveness” http://www.dentistrytoday.com/
“Furthermore, the review authors assessed each study included in the review for risk of bias by examining the quality of the methods used and how thoroughly the results were reported to determine the extent to which the results reported were likely to be reliable. The assessment showed that more than 97% of the 155 studies were at high risk of bias, reducing the overall quality of the results. There was substantial variation between studies in terms of results as well.”
Rep. Bragg: Also, does the typical water filter you would put on your, you know, house faucet, would that filter out fluoride and chlorines and…?
ADH Smith: It would not. There are some… there are some filter systems that can remove fluoride, and particularly in parts of the country where the naturally occurring fluoride levels are much higher than those recommended and the 0.7 ppm recommended, then some people do use those. I’ll speak for myself. When I was living in Africa, we were on a system that during a dry season, the levels of fluoride would be higher, much higher than recommended. During those times, we would use a special cartridge that would bind fluoride. The downside is, the child I had who we were using that for has had the most cavities of all of them, but it is possible to remove fluoride at least some level with home water systems. Jeff can probably give you more detailed information, though, on that.
ADH Jeff Stone: Your typical home treatment unit removes the chlorine through a charcoal filter, and that enables the user to no longer taste chlorine. There’s very few water systems typically bought that actually remove the fluoride because they’re much more expensive.
[Via our monthly water bills, we are literally paying to be poisoned by toxic fluoride and other chemical additives. Why should the burden of removing fluoride after it’s added be placed on us? IT SHOULDN’T! We are aware that there are filtration systems that claim to remove fluoride, but the purpose of our rebuttals is to show the bodily damage that is caused by ingesting poisonous fluoride and the environmental damage to nature, so get prepared for the declaration of endangered species – which is why we believe that Act 197 of 2011 should be repealed immediately! We have posted several articles over the past years regarding the damaging effects caused by water fluoridation chemicals, many of which are linked to cancer. They are on our SecureArkansas.com website.
*U.S. Representative James Delaney of New York added a provision to the 1938 Federal Food, and Cosmetic Act declaring that the Food and Drug Administration cannot approve any food additive found to induce cancer in a person or animal. This provision was added in 1958 and became known as the Delaney Amendment. In 1996, Congress replaced the amendment to require a less-than one-in-a-million lifetime risk threshold.
Confirmed “Cancer Deaths Linked to Water Fluoridation” This being the case, fluoridation should cause the Delaney amendment to kick in and block any fluoride product being added to the public water supply. The Delaney Amendment says that “anything found to induce cancer in man or animal cannot be legally put in food or drink of man or animal.”
National Cancer Institute – Head Chemist Dr. Dean Burk “Tells The Truth About Water Fluoridation and Cancer”
Dean Burk, PhD, a biochemist, was a co-founder of the National Cancer Institute and head of the Cytochemistry Sector for over 30 years. Dr. Burk co-discovered biotin, a chemical necessary for cell growth, the production of fatty acids, and the metabolism of fats and amino acids. He was the head chemist at the National Cancer Institutes Cytochemistry Sector, part of the National Institute of Health under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He received the Hilderbrand Prize in 1952 for his work on photosynthesis, and the Gerhard Domagk Prize in 1965 for his development of procedures for distinguishing the difference between a normal cell and one damaged by cancer. He was the co-developer of the prototype of the nuclear magnetic resonance scanner.
“When you have power, you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.” – Dr. Dean Burk
“Fluoride amounts to public murder on a grand scale.” – Dr. Dean Burk This comment can be heard by clicking on his comment above.
“In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.”
Congressional Record 21 July 1976 – Dr. Dean Burk
“It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.” – Dr. Dean Burk
J. William Hirzy, PhD, former scientist at the EPA and Vice President of the NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 280 testified before the Senate SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER. The union he represented was comprised of and represented the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. The members included toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers, and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work they do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for management’s use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. These professionals are opposed to water fluoridation at any level. He stated “we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted.” Hirzy stated that “In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published, the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation.” He states that their conclusions were changed from “clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats” to read “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.” A copy of his complete testimony with references can be found here. -S. Young MD
Speaking of the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency…
Most of all public water supplies are flushed down the drain into the environment!
Of the hydrofluosilicic acid (HFSA), which is disposed of in Arkansas’ drinking water supplies, over 99 percent is used for flushing toilets, washing clothes, bathing, showering, watering lawns, and the like, and is simply widely redistributed back into the environment, illustrating the use of the nation’s drinking water systems as simply a convenient way to deal with this hazardous waste and giving truth to an aphorism unworthy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency: “dilution is the solution to pollution.”
A letter from the EPA states:
“In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as the source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.”
As we’ve alerted you before, fluoride not only is toxic to humans, it is also toxic to fish, animals, and the environment. Secure Arkansas mentioned above that we have suspected that fluoridated water runoff is one of the reasons that could be used for adding more species to the endangered species list. We are likely to observe more of these conditions if we do not stop this deadly fluoridation process! Secure Arkansas is concerned about both a land and water grab happening at some point in time.
*Don’t forget that Arkansas is an agricultural state. A large part of our economy depends on our produce. Arkansas produces a lot of grain, fruits, and vegetables. The poultry industry should be concerned. They, too, would now be affected because they would have to water the poor animals with poisoned water. That bird (which may be a chicken or holiday turkey that you’re eating) would now be loaded up with fluoride and other unhealthy chemicals! Who wants to purchase toxic birds? The public should be made aware that our Arkansas poultry should now be considered contaminated under Act 197 of 2011! Whatever countries to which this meat is shipped should be made aware of this problem, too.
Click here to read an article “Fluoride from Municipal Water Supplies is Toxic to Fish”.
After looking at the fluoride chemicals being dumped into your public water supply, do you still believe fluoridation is safe for both humans and the environment?
Fluoride is not an environmental or economically sound addition to our municipal water supplies. By its nature and manufacture, fluoride is an immediate threat to humans and a cumulative threat to the environment. Its addition to municipal water also places an unnecessary expense on the budgets of communities. Its harmful accumulation in our ecosystems and humans adds to already rising medical costs. The discontinuation of fluoridation will not reduce the quality of our dental health; it would improve the quality of water that is released into our ecosystems daily in the form of waste water while reducing medical expenses needed to treat overexposure. Fluoride is a known “toxic compound” that should never have been allowed into our water systems.
In addition to damaging our environment, we want to remind you about the terrible effects fluoride has on our bodies!
Conclusion: Fluoride can cause lipid peroxidation, DNA damage, and apoptosis in the L-02 cell experimental model and there is a significant positive correlation between fluoride concentration and these pathological changes.]
(Now, back to the verbal comments made at the ADH meeting…)
Rep. Bragg: Ok. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
House Chair Linck: Yes, sir. Last question by Senator Cooper. You are recognized.
Sen. John Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In one of the… On your website, on the Department of Health, this is “Arkansas’ big health problems and how we plan to solve them”, your website. Page 73, there a figure 5.2 there that shows the percent of adults 65+ with no natural teeth present. Are you familiar with that graph? (According to State Master statics, adults aged 65+ who have had ALL their natural teeth extracted in Arkansas is 24.6%. Our ranking is #15. See below for the states ranked in the top 3.
A fourth of the elderly in Arkansas have no teeth, so could someone please tell us how they could possibly benefit from water fluoridation?
Loss of natural teeth (adults aged 65+ who have had ALL their natural teeth extracted) and state ranking according to fluoridation:
#1 West Virginia is 91.1% fluoridated.
#2 Kentucky is 99.9%. BMC Oral Health reports that Kentucky, the most fluoridated state, exceeds the U.S. average for dental health problems as 13% of adults aged over 18 years are missing all of their teeth, compared to 6% nationally, placing Kentucky as the nation’s highest percentage of toothless persons.
#3 Tennessee is 89.7% fluoridated. Fluoridation fails as America’s cavity crisis escalates. Water fluoridation is not the model success it has been claimed to be but is a dismal failure!)
ADH Smith: Yes, I am familiar with it. I would have to look at to give you…
Sen. Cooper: Well, I’m not going to give you any figures on that. I just wanted to ask a general question about it. That would compare the U.S. and Arkansas, and the lines are separating there which indicates that we’re getting worse. What is the comparison between fluoridated water percentage-wise in Arkansas and the rest of the nation? Do you know that?
ADH Smith: Currently, they’re pretty close. Prior to Act 197, though, we were quite a bit lower. Jeff, do you have those exact numbers?
ADH Stone: I believe that we’re currently about 76% of the Arkansans that use public water, receive fluoridated water. I think the national average is 72%. And before this law came into place, Arkansas was at about 62%. (As you can see, they want most Arkansans drinking this chemical cocktail otherwise known as fluoride. Act 197 of 2011 is extreme and oppressive to the public! Those of you who can should consider reverting back to well water.)
ADH Smith: We should also add, though, that when we’re looking at our older Arkansans, 65 doesn’t seem that old to me anymore, but really, the impact was the levels of… the proportion of fluoridated water… you know, back when they were children and when they were adults. To me, water fluoridation is most impactful to children but also protects adults throughout their lifetime. Of course, once you’ve lost all of your teeth then there’s nothing to protect. (So, adults 65 and older are drinking fluoridated water that can affect cognitive function, cause hip fractures, and cause them to have their teeth removed!
A 1993 Toxicological Profile by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services concluded that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems. Water fluoridation is doing more harm than the suggested good!)
Sen. John Cooper: So the point there is, did we start fluoridating here after the rest of the country did? Percentage-wise?
ADH Engineer Jeff Stone: I believe that since we’re a rural state and probably that fluoridation began, a higher percentage of our population lived in rural areas, there probably was a lag behind the more urban areas, urbanized areas of the country to receive fluoridated water.
Sen. Cooper: This graph here ends at 2010, so, that’s… Did you have any other comments about that graph there?
ADH Smith: I’m going to ask Dr. Bollen to talk about that in terms of our trajectory in terms of oral health in the state, and among (inaudible).
Sen. Cooper: Ok. Thank you.
(40:07 of full audio file)
= = = = =
Stay tuned for Part 5.
Click here to listen to the audio-only of the minutes covered in this alert.
Be sure to forward this email to your family and friends!
They may also sign up to receive our Action Alerts by clicking here.
Local control of water and our freedom from fluoride poison are important!
As always, you can find our email articles posted on our website: SecureArkansas.com. The Search box is a handy tool.
For more information about FLUORIDE, just type it into the Search box on our website, and click Enter!
Securing the blessings of liberty,