January 13, 2016
**REGISTER TODAY for this month’s International Fluoride Free Teleconference that will be held this Saturday the 14th at 5pm
(U.S. Eastern time). The call will feature experts discussing and
answering questions about filtering fluoride out of tap water, and
fluoride levels in bottled water. Click here to REGISTER.**
Momentum Builds with Coverage of EPA Petition
The Citizen's Petition to the EPA submitted by the Fluoride Action Network, together with a coalition of environmental and public health organizations, has continued to gain the attention of thousands as the result of recent media coverage. The petition was first covered by Mercola.com on December 13th, and was shared over 9,000 times and has been viewed by more than 40,000 people.
This was followed by three separate articles published in Wisconsin featuring Brenda Staudenmaier, FAN’s point person in Wisconsin, a mother, and petitioner to the EPA. The first article appeared in the Peshtigo Times on December 14th. The second article appeared on the front page of the Green Bay Press-Gazette, a USA Today affiliate, on January 6th and has been shared over 1,500 times. The third article was published in the Business News for Northeast Wisconsin on January 9th. This coverage has received the attention of Green Bay city councilors, who are now re-thinking
fluoridation.
On January 11th, Oregon’s leading source for health news, The Lund Report,
published a guest article by Portland and Newport fluoride-free
organizer Rick North. We have re-printed the fabulous piece below and
suggest reading and sharing it, since it’s a concise but comprehensive
argument for an end to fluoridation.
Please also help us continue to educate thousands more by:
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
Momentum Builds with Coverage of EPA Petition
The Citizen's Petition to the EPA submitted by the Fluoride Action Network, together with a coalition of environmental and public health organizations, has continued to gain the attention of thousands as the result of recent media coverage. The petition was first covered by Mercola.com on December 13th, and was shared over 9,000 times and has been viewed by more than 40,000 people.
This was followed by three separate articles published in Wisconsin featuring Brenda Staudenmaier, FAN’s point person in Wisconsin, a mother, and petitioner to the EPA. The first article appeared in the Peshtigo Times on December 14th. The second article appeared on the front page of the Green Bay Press-Gazette, a USA Today affiliate, on January 6th and has been shared over 1,500 times. The third article was published in the Business News for Northeast Wisconsin on January 9th. This coverage has received the attention of Green Bay city councilors, who are now re-thinking
fluoridation.
Please also help us continue to educate thousands more by:
- Sharing the new video: Michael Connett, Fluoride & the Brain.
- Adding your name to our petition, and sharing it with others.
- Emailing this version of the press release to the news department or editors of your local news outlets.
- Email the petition to your local officials.
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
The
sheer weight of scientific evidence has far exceeded reasonable doubt,
and it’s difficult to see how the EPA, or anyone else, can continue to
believe that water fluoridation is safe
Six weeks ago, the Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine and several others petitioned the EPA to ban fluoridation chemicals because they’re neurotoxic – they harm the brain.
The
petition cites 196 peer-reviewed studies published over the last ten
years, including over 2,500 pages of supporting documents. Out of 61
human studies, 57 found that fluoride caused harm, including behavioral
problems and lowered IQ in children. Out of 115 animal studies, 112
found harm. Out of 17 cellular studies and three reviews, all found
harm.
These
eye-opening numbers may be a revelation to most of the health and
medical community, but significant evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity
has been building for years.
The National Research Council (NRC)
of the National Academy of Sciences published Fluoride in Drinking
Water, a 507-page review of over 1,000 studies that took three years to
complete. Compiled by a blue-ribbon committee of 12 leading scientists,
it’s considered the most comprehensive, authoritative resource ever
written on the subject.
The
NRC’s objectives were to assess if the maximum level of fluoride
allowed in water, 4 parts per million (ppm), was safe (it determined it
wasn’t) and assess fluoride’s toxicity in general, including its risk in
relation to total exposure. It linked fluoride with known or possible
health risks, including endocrine disruption, fluorosis, kidney and
thyroid disease, diabetes and bone fractures, among others.
It
was unequivocal on neurotoxicity: “it is apparent that fluorides have
the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain . . .“ In
addition to numerous animal studies, it cited five Chinese studies
linking higher levels of fluoride in water with lowered IQ in children.
The studies varied in quality and detail, but the NRC concluded “the
consistency of the collective results warrants additional research . .
.”
Following
the NRC review, several scientists on the committee openly voiced their
opposition to fluoridation. To quote just two, the late neurobehavioral
science specialist Robert Isaacson, PhD, said “I had no fixed opinion
on whether or not fluoride should be added to drinking water . . . The
more I learned the more I became convinced that the addition of
fluorides to drinking water was, and is, a mistake.” Hardy Limeback,
DDS, PhD, both a scientist and former head of preventive dentistry at
the University of Toronto, said “In my opinion, the evidence that
fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming.”
HARVARD META-ANALYSIS – 2012
This Harvard-funded
meta-analysis led by Anna Choi, PhD and published in Environmental
Health Perspectives found that children in China exposed to higher
levels of fluoride tested lower for IQ in 26 out of 27 studies. The
average difference was significant – 7 IQ points lower. Potential
confounding causes such as lead and arsenic were noted in some studies,
but controlled for in others, and the authors determined that “it seems
unlikely that fluoride-attributed neurotoxicity could be due to other
water contaminants.”
The
higher fluoride villages had higher concentrations of fluoride in water
than in the U.S., where artificial fluoridation is typically 0.7 ppm.
Nine, however, had concentrations lower than 3 ppm and one high fluoride
village had only 0.88 ppm.
The Harvard meta-analysis was further reinforced by a study published in The Lancet by
Philippe Grandjean, MD and Philip Landrigan, MD. In 2006, their first
review identified six chemicals as known developmental neurotoxins
(harming the brains of children), including lead, arsenic and PCB’s.
Their 2014 study named six more. Fluoride was one of them. These
chemicals are especially dangerous because they can cause brain damage
that is often untreatable and permanent, including behavioral problems
and lower IQ.
The
authors are world-renowned. Grandjean is a Harvard professor of
environmental health, head of environmental medicine research at the
University of Southern Denmark and toxicology advisor to the Danish
National Board of Health. Landrigan is a professor at the Mt. Sinai
School of Medicine and previously worked for the Centers for Disease
Control and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. He
was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal of the US Public Health
Service.
THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST
In
the face of this compelling and continuously growing body of evidence,
promoters still argue that fluoridating water is safe for everyone. This
ignores three indisputable facts. First, standard toxicology (and the
EPA’s own guidelines) requires consideration of individual variability
by taking the lowest dose or level showing harm and dividing it by at
least 10 to determine a safety level protecting more vulnerable
subgroups in a population. This lowers the bar far below current
fluoridation practices.
Dose
is the second factor, because toxin levels are only half the equation
determining risk. Children, for instance, typically consume more water
per pound of body weight than adults. The EPA petition documented that
some children drinking just two liters of 0.7 ppm fluoridated water a
day were at risk of significantly lowered IQ. Other subpopulations, like
kidney disease and diabetic patients, athletes and manual laborers also
drink higher amounts of water, increasing their health risks.
Third,
apologists ignore other sources of fluoride, including children’s
all-too-familiar swallowing of fluoridated toothpaste. Environmental
exposure is common, such as in pesticide residues and air pollution.
Intel, for example, was fined $143,000 in 2014 for illegal fluoride
emissions in Hillsboro, and industrial discharges of fluoride, even when
legal, are widespread throughout the country. Finally, anything made
with fluoridated water, such as soft drinks, baby formula and processed
food, can add significantly to our toxic load.
Whatever
phrase is used, “First do no harm,” “Better safe than sorry,” “The
Precautionary Principle,” etc., most would agree that if there’s
reasonable doubt if a substance is safe, the public shouldn’t be
intentionally exposed to it.
Considering
all the recent neurotoxicity studies – not to mention fluoride’s other
NRC- identified health risks – the sheer weight of scientific evidence
has far exceeded reasonable doubt. It’s difficult to see how the EPA, or
anyone else, can continue to believe that water fluoridation is safe.
Rick
North is a retired executive for several non-profits. He’s the former
executive vice president (CEO) of the Oregon American Cancer Society and
former project director for the Oregon Physicians for Social
Responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment