“the implementation of this fluoride program is illegal and violates The Safe Drinking Water Act.” EPA Scientists Union.
All across North America, and especially in Canada, citizens are beginning to question the fluoride paradigm – the idea that our institutions are acting on our behalf with impartial wisdom is under assault by a grassroots movement. The charge is lead in no small part by the scientists at the venerable institution known as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Union that now represents the over 7000 scientists and professionals feels very strongly that they are being asked to compromise their professional integrity.
On their website they state: “Professionals must be responsible for the validity of their work, which must be conducted without “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or discrimination.”
The problems began when the EPA pressured their employees to approve an increase in the amount of fluoride in water that would cause a large increase in one of the most well known side effects of fluoride exposure, brittle and pitting of teeth in children known as fluorosis. The union states that there was political pressure from the top to approve this unnecessary increase. The union also has justifiable concerns about other questions over the safety of fluoride that are much more disturbing than fluorosis. They argue that there are studies done within the EPA itself that raises grave concerns over the mutagenic properties of fluoride – that it is also a potential carcinogen: it can cause specific cancers in studies the EPA scientists performed on mice, as well as effects on the brain, kidneys, bones, and cellular level changes in enzyme production which could implicate it as a factor in a whole host of possible illnesses such as chronic fatigue and intestinal disorders.
The scientists argue that not only are they being asked to betray their code of ethics, but that “the implementation of this fluoride program is illegal and violates the Safe Drinking Water Act which requires that an RMCL (Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level) must be a reflection of the opinion of health professionals as to the level of a contaminant at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons will occur, and which allows an adequate margin of safety. However, the final RMCL for fluoride does not represent a determination made on the basis of scientific and technical expertise.”
In other words the scientists that work at the EPA are saying that we are being deceived by the very institutions that are charged with our protection, the mass medication of people with fluoride is unethical and whatever benefits that are derived are not justified by the growing evidence that risks are substantial when applied to millions of people whose risk factors are unknown. Not only do they charge that it is unethical but that it is criminal, it is a violation of laws to protect citizens rights and health.
When the scientists refused to buckle under and to keep quiet about this, key members were threatened with dismissal. The Union responded with lawsuit that they won and, Dr. William Marcus, chief toxicologist for the Office of Drinking Water and the union’s treasurer at the time who had refused to remain silent on the cancer risk issue and had been fired, had his position restored to him.
Emboldened by this victory the Union has become involved in this public debate and their victory was instrumental in the recent decision to end artificial water fluoridation in Calgary. Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., a research scientist whose work the EPA Union cites has shown unequivocally that fluoride accumulates in the brain. This has not done her career any favours. Her reputation was sullied and her employment at the Forsyth Institute of Dental Research was terminated when her results were published in a peer reviewed journal. She was later awarded damages for unjustifiable termination of employment.
So where is this political pressure that the EPA union alleges is behind this lobbying for the continuation of the fluoride program in spite of good research calling into question its alleged safety and effectiveness? One doesn’t have to look too far, the phosphate fertilizer industry is the main source of the silicofluorides in our water. These chemicals are not naturally occurring, they come from the smoke stacks of these industries and are so dangerous that they are classified as toxic waste and dumping it into the environment is illegal. Yet it ends up in the municipal water supply touted as one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century in public health. These fluoride compounds have not been approved by the FDA or Health Canada for human consumption. Clearly there is a contradiction here. Perhaps that is why the statement on the EPA Union’s website states that they “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.”
In Canada we have Dr. Hardy Limeback, an authoritative voice who was often cited by health officials in their defense of fluoridated water. He was also a long-standing consultant to the Canadian Dental Association and a professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto. He has now become a dissenting voice and states that fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and our overall health. Although he still believes fluoride in toothpaste is effective against tooth decay, he says it doesn’t need to be added to our water and we may be taking unnecessary risks by doing so. “There is no point swallowing fluoridated water. The only benefit comes with direct contact with the teeth.” He has also stated that “children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste, or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never.”
People who oppose fluoride are often branded as an enemy of the poor whom it is claimed benefit the most from fluoride in the water, yet when you factor out income differences fluoride’s claimed benefits vanish. It would seem that proper nutrition, good dental hygiene and access to dental care are the greatest determinants of dental health (or, oral health, as dental bureaucrats euphemistically call it).
The EPA scientists union states that “there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.”
Perhaps the anti fluoride movement is not just a bunch of conspiracy wackos with a personal vendetta against the system. There are professional organizations representing thousands who are at the forefront of this movement, however there is a paradigm of thought that prevents this information from being accessed by citizens who should have the right to make an informed decision on this matter that effects their health and well being as well as that of their children.
Like Al Gore and his inconvenient truth, this movement has its champion. Dr. Paul Connett, a full and tenured professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, where he has taught for 15 years. He obtained his undergraduate degree in natural sciences from Cambridge University and his PhD in chemistry from Dartmouth College in the U.S. For the past 17 years Dr. Connett has researched fluoride and has co-authored “The Case against Fluoride” along with Canadian PhD Dr. Beck and UK PhD Dr. Micklem.
He is a compelling speaker, yet is mostly ignored by main stream media so far. The fluoride issue is not clear, but what is clear, is that this violates the rights of people to make their own informed decisions. The American Dental Association does NOT recommend fluoridated water for children under the age of two. This a significant and important part of the population yet most people have never even heard of the ADA’s recommendation, including most city councilors.
If you drink more than two litres a day, are a child, or elderly or have kidney problems, you are being overexposed to fluoride: it is toxic and deadly for you in small amounts. One teaspoon of toxic silicofluoride will kill you, that’s a fact. Silicofluoride is more toxic that sodium fluoride which is in toothpaste and what most dentists use. Far too many dentists are still under the false impression that so-called dental grade fluoride is used in water fluoridation schemes.
Toothpaste tubes must carry a warning on the back, have a look. The ‘therapeutic level’ of 1 part per million and the unsafe Maximum Contaminant Level Goal of 4ppm as currently acknowledged are very very dangerous deception that borders on criminal negligence. Clearly the fluoride cessation movement is representing a very valid and important question. If silicofluoride has valid safety concerns, is unapproved and the EPA scientists union states clearly that it should be stopped immediately, then it is up to the authorities to seriously investigate these concerns. As a precautionary measure it should be stopped until proper toxicological assessments have been done. These have never been done. So, why is it still in our water?
Write to your municipal Councillor to ask for this ill-fated health initiative to be ended until such studies are available from reputable, independent sources.
A simple one line request is all that’s needed:
Dear Councillor (name)
Please exercise your right and responsibility to end the wasteful, useless and dangerous practice of water fluoridation in our City.
Your full name
Your full Address
Your phone number (optional but recommended)
Watch how they skate around the issue, defer to the medical Officer of Health and in both cases, you get a marketing message full of inaccuracies and subterfuge that attempts to dissuade from further investigation.
One needs to do research outside official sources because they all sing the same tune and provide misinformation and inaccurate details that tend to convince the uninitiated to believe the official version. If you can not discern this manner of responding, then you have a very big problem understanding how coercion works to convince the population that there are no mistakes made by bureaucrats who believe in what they are bound to sell to the unwary public regarding fluoridation.
Once you get your reply, send me a copy at email@example.com so we can craft a proper response that will put them on notice that we are not as stupid as they think we are.
To help us with our public awareness campaign, please contribute to the cause with a donation. Make your cheque, bank draft or money order to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa and mail or deliver it c/o 1385 Matheson Rd, Ottawa, K1J 8B5. Any amount will help or $10, $20, $50, $100 or more. Receipts for business purposes issued on request. Tax receipts not available: we can not get charitable status for tax purposes.