EPA Scientists Oppose Water Fluoridation

EPA Scientists Oppose Water Fluoridation

“I’ve never seen scientific evidence discounted and
refused to be looked at the way they’re doing with fluoride.” We’re
facing a bottom-line reality. There can be no question that the US
government’s policy is that water will be fluoridated no matter how much
harm is done to the people.

Fish Skeleton, by Erica Hargreave


by Heidi Stevenson

In this age of repression on genuine scientific research, we need to
take note that scientists free to do open and honest research, and
report on it, have often taken stands that dispute their agencies’
officials stances. Nowhere has that been more true than in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the issue of fluoride. Rank and
file EPA scientists have strongly opposed water fluoridation.

EPA scientists protected by the National Treasury Employees Union
were approached by an employee in 1985. His concern was that he was:

<blockquote>… being forced to write into the regulation a statement
to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have
“funky” teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition
to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason
for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set
its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA
knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe
dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic,
EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to
prevent it.^[1]
</blockquote>
A statement issued by EPA scientists stated that they tried to
“settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable
or unwilling to resist external political pressure.” Therefore, they
went public with it and filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a
public interest group’s suit against the EPA. In their statement, from
which the above quote was extracted, the scientists avered that their
opposition to fluoridation only grew stronger after that incident.

Studies Showing Fluoride Lowers Intelligence


That article goes on to document research by Phyllis Mullenix, PhD,
who had established the Department of Toxicology at the Forsyth Dental
Research Institute. She was also involved with a research program at
Harvard’s Department of Neuropathology and Psychiatry. That research
documented significant neurotoxic effects of fluoride.

Dr. Mullenix described going to a conference of the National
Institute of Dental Research, a division of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), to present her findings and realizing, on walking in, that
she was in hostile territory. The entry areas were filled with
propaganda declaring “The Miracle of Fluoride”. Of her experience at
that conference, she stated:

<blockquote>The fluoride pattern of behavioral problems matches up
with the same results of administering radiation and chemotherapy [to
cancer patients]. All of these really nasty treatments that are used
clinically in cancer therapy are well known to cause I.Q. deficits in
children. That’s one of the best studied effects they know of. The
behavioral pattern that results from the use of fluoride matches that
produced by cancer treatment that causes a reduction in intelligence.^[2]
</blockquote>
On meeting with dental industry representatives afterwards, she was
asked if she’d been saying that fluoride lowers children’s IQ. She says,
“And I told them, ‘basically, yes.’”^[2]

That was the end of her career. She was fired from Forsyth Dental
Center and has gotten no related grants since then. Shortly after her
firing, Forsyth received a quarter million dollar grant from Colgate,
the toothpaste manufacturer. She has since stated:

<blockquote>I got into science because it was fun, and I would like
to go back and do further studies, but I no longer have any faith in the
integrity of the system. I find research is utterly controlled.
</blockquote>
EPA scientists also noted a Chinese study documenting that children
between ages 8 and 13 consistently score 5-10 IQ points lower than
children subjected to less fluoride.

Fluoride and Cancer


Dr. William Marcus, the chief toxicologist of the EPA’s Office of
Drinking Water, was fired for his refusal to be silent about his work on
fluoride.

Dr. Marcus was particularly concerned about several studies showing
that fluoride causes osteosarcoma (bone cancer), particularly in young
men. A 2-year study was conducted by the National Toxicology Program. It
documented bone cancer and cancer in other tissues in rats. This
coincided with other studies documenting fluoride’s ability to cause
cellular mutations, which are associated with cancer, and osteosarcomas
in young men in New Jersey.

Dr. Marcus called for an unbiased evaluation of these studies. He was
vindicated, though it didn’t result in full restitution of his losses,
when he won his lawsuit against the EPA, which found that he was clearly
dismissed for his anti-fluoride advocacy.

Brain and Kidney Damaging Effects of Fluoride


The EPA scientists then noted a study by JA Varner, KF Jensen, W Horvath, and RL Isaacson^[3] that
demonstrated as little as 1 ppm (part per million) of fluoride in water
causes damage to the brains and kidneys of rats. The scientists
referred to this as:

<blockquote>… especially disturbing because of the low dose level of
fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats – rats are more resistant
to fluoride than humans.
</blockquote>
Most significantly, the EPA considers such doses to be benign.

Pineal Gland and Early Maturation


The scientists reported on a study documenting that fluoride collects
in the pineal gland, resulting in early sexual maturation in children. A
comparison of girls in two different towns, one with flouridated water
and one without, showed that those drinking the treated water matured an
average of six months earlier.

Bone Pathology Caused by Fluoride


EPA scientists expressed concerns about crippling skeletal fluorosis.
It was ethical deficiencies in the standards-setting process that
resulted in them filing the amicus curiae brief discussed above.

Many of the symptoms from dioxin poisoning are indistinguishable from
fluoride poisoning, an unsurprising fact, since dioxins usually contain
fluoride. It’s probaby the primary reason for dioxin’s devastating
effects.

Lack of Efficacy in Preventing Dental Decay


Finally, the scientists pointed to the lack of double-blind studies
in support of caries prevention. They pointed out that a study done by
dentists of the National Institute of Dental Research, involving more
than 39,000 children aged 5-17, documented no significant differences in
tooth health among fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and
nonfluoridated communities. The study considered decayed, missing, and
filled teeth.

They also reported a 50-year study comparing two New York
communities, Newburgh and Kingston. It documented no benefit from
fluoridation, but showed double the amount of fluorosis in the teeth of
children drinking fluoridated water, the first sign of fluoride
toxicity.

They cited a publication by John Colquhoun, Principal Dental Officer
for Auckland, New Zealand, titled “Why I changed My Mind About Water
Fluoridation”. The article stated that:

<blockquote>Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated
to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the
U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health
professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.
</blockquote>
EPA Scientists’ Conclusion


The EPA scientists’ report stated:

<blockquote>For governmental and other organizations to continue to
push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure
coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is
irrational and irresponsible at best.
</blockquote>
They used the EPA’s own risk control methodology, called the
Reference Dose, to determine what an acceptable fluoride dose is. By
that method, they determined that the Reference Dose for fluoride is
0.000007 mg/kg of body weight/day.

In Washington DC, they determined that people drinking only one quart
from the public water supply each day ingest 0.01 mg/kg a day. That is more than 1,428 times the safe dose of fluoride!

The EPA scientists concluded:

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


The EPA has set a standard of no more than 4.0 mg/liter of water as a
maximum allowed. In minor deference to children, who are at far greater
risk, they set a secondary standard of 2.0 mg/liter. They don’t
regulate against it; rather, they merely require that communities with
fluoridation at that level must be informed.

This is nothing less than a declaration of war on the people,
especially those without the funding to protect themselves by drinking
bottled water (which carries its own environmental issues) or purifying
tap water. It also means that farm animals are at risk for fluoridation,
as documented in this video:



The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with protecting the
environment and protecting people’s health from environmental
contamination. Clearly, the EPA doesn’t take this seriously. Its own
scientists, the ones charged with studying issues of environmental
health, are ignored and forced to silence on fluoride, a substance
that’s been shown to provide none of the claimed benefit for teeth and a
host of devastating health effects. Children are losing their full
potential in intelligence and health.

In 2005, 11 EPA employee unions representing more than 700
professional environmental and public health officials, officially
called for a moratorium on fluoridation.^[4] It was based
primarily on “an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of
Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone
cancer in young boys” by the EPA.

The EPA still hasn’t taken a stand on the dangers of fluoride in the
environment or water. They even help in the promulgation of outright
lies about its safety. Who does the EPA really represent? It certainly
isn’t the people.

As Dr. Robert Carton, former President of the EPA Headquarters Union, stated:

<blockquote>This whole thing is politics. You’re not talking science at all.


Source-
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-01-31/epa-scientists-oppose-water-fluoridation/
</blockquote>