EPA suppressed information that fluoride chemical was carcinogenic

 The Fluoridation RecordDec. 27, 2021
A newsletter of East Coast Science News, Belchertown, Massachusetts, USA
_____________________________________________________________________________________
EPA suppressed information that fluoride chemical was carcinogenic

A senior official at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2019 suppressed information that a fluoride-containing ingredient of a paint, parachlorobenzotrifluoride, or PCBTF, is carcinogenic, allowing to this day the unidentified product to be sold without such a warning, according to a report December 22 in The Intercept.  The chemical is listed as carcinogenic by the State of California and as likely carcinogenic by the International Agency for Cancer Research. It makes up 50 percent of the weight of the paint, which cannot be named by EPA because of business confidentiality rules.  The Intercept report is based on interviews and documents supplied

by whistleblowers at the agency. They did not name the senior official who deleted the cancer warning from documents for fear of retaliation, according to the report.
A 2009 National Toxicology Program report “noted experiments that had shown the
chemical to cause tremors and hyperactivity in rats, as well as lung problems in pups who had
been exposed in the womb,” reported The Intercept.
David Michaels, former commissioner of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, noted in The Intercept report that these revelations mean EPA violated the
2016 revision to the Toxic Substances Control Act, which were intended to notify workers of
potential toxic exposures.
https://theintercept.com/2021/12/22/epa-whistleblowers-carcinogen-paint-solvent/
Report decries false and misleading claims, but cites no examples
A compilation of statements from fourteen unidentified advocates of water fluoridation,
mostly municipal health officials, that is presented as an “attempt to identify best practice in
defending the public health measure from unjustified attack based on false and misleading
information,” does not cite any instance in which advocates for the repeal of fluoridation
presented false or misleading information.
The report by several physicians and a student at the University of Calgary, published
December 11 in JURA, the Journal of Undergraduate Research in Alberta, concluded advocates
should counter false and misleading claims, emphasize alleged cost savings of the program, and
improve working relationships with elected officials.
The authors assert more than twelve times throughout the report that opponents of
fluoridation make false claims, yet never cite a single example.
One unidentified participant in the survey is quoted as writing, “When we chat with our
politicians [...]and [there] appears to be controversy from the usual suspects of “it’s a toxic
substance”, [then] we have to address each and every one of those [concerns] with our
partners and the municipal government.”
Another participant writes, “We’re not ‘mass medicating’ everyone. It’s a nutrient! It’s a
public health measure.”