The Fluoride Action Network

FAN Bulletin #476: Letters to Beattie.

11th February 2006
Dear All,

It's heart warming to see the letters pouring into Premier Beattie of Queensland. Below is a sample of those already sent. If you haven't sent in your letter yet please consider doing so (see Bulletin 474 for details). We also print below the letter that Dr. William Hirzy has sent to the Ryans who are leading the battle against fluoridation in Brisbane.

Please send to the Premier at thepremier@premiers.qld.gov.au and copy (cc) the Minister of Health Stephen Richardson at Health@ministerial.qld.gov.au>
and blind copy (BCC) <jryan@ecn.net.au>,
boydens@mrbean.net.au>,<paul@fluoridealert.org>.
PaulConnett

Dr William Hirzy's letter to the Ryans whirzy@american.edu

Dear Dr. Ryan and Mrs. Ryan:

Our labor union, representing the professional employees at the headquarters location of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has opposed water fluoridation since learning in 1984 of the shoddy science supporting the practice and the insidious impact of the US national fluoridation program on the quality of the science used in setting EPA's drinking water standards for fluoride.

I attach for your use copies of three statements. One of these is my statement on behalf of and authorized by our headquarters union, Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, before the New Jersey State Health Council in 2004 in opposition to a proposal to mandate fluoridation in that state.

The other two statements are letters signed by presidents of eleven EPA unions from across America; one is to EPA Administrator Steven Johnson and the other to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (the same letter was also sent to other key Members of Congress). The letter to Administrator Johnson asked him to acknowledge the link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma by proposing a health-based drinking water standard of zero for fluoride. The letters to Congress asked for legislation imposing a moratorium on fluoridation in the U.S. pending a full hearing on the propriety of continuing the practice in the face of all the adverse information about it developed since the last such hearing in 1977.

The fact that representatives of 7,000 professionals working for the United States government feel that continuing fluoridation is not a good idea should weigh heavily on the mind of officials in Australia contemplating an extension of this dangerous and ineffective practice in your country.

Best wishes for success in your fight to maintain your health and pure water supplies in Brisbane. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely,

J. William Hirzy
Chemist in Residence and Adjunct Professor, American University, and Vice-President, NTEU Chapter 280
Phone: 202-885-1780

1) Dan Stockin, Tennessee, dan@thelilliecenter.com

Dear Sir:

As a Public Health professional of 17 years with a real-world experience in hazardous materials management and toxics assessment, I wish to convey to you that the idea of deliberately adding fluoride to drinking water violates every toxicologic principle I have ever worked with. The inherent variables in individual health status, individual health response, individual dose received, purity of product, and synergistic chemical reactions with other chemical exposures and dietary components make the concept of fluoridation being "safe" more than untenable. Please resist pressure to add this known cumulative poison to Brisbane water.

I speak from experience when I say that my public health colleagues promoting fluoridation may mean well, but sadly their ability to evaluate the safety of fluoridation in an unbiased fashion has been deteriorated by a number of forces, chief of which are ignorance and ego. In public health, as in other professions, the realities of the sheer magnitude of a problem can cause us to fall prey to the idea of a quick, easy fix. But fluoridation is not a "silver bullet" that will fix cavities. In addition to not treating the root cause (lack of oral hygiene and access to dental care and reduced sugars in the diet), fluoridation even misses the mark of treating the symptoms safely and effectively. I respectfully suggest addressing the cause, rather than harmfully flailing only at the effects.

Daniel G. Stockin, MPH
Senior Operations Officer
The Lillie Center, Inc.
Ph: 615-370-5788 Fax: 615-370-2151
Brentwood, Tennessee, USA

2) Bill Wilson, North Shore City, New Zealand bill.wilson@xtra.co.nz

Dear Sir,

I will not go over the many reasons, strong though they are, why Brisbane should not be fluoridated. I will only appeal to your ethical sense. Do you really believe that it is right to force people to ingest a cumulative toxic substance against their will? It is a spurious argument to claim that they are not forced to drink tap water - I will only suggest that you tell that to the poorer people who cannot afford filters or to purchase bottled water.

Best Wishes,

Bill Wilson
118 Forrest Hill Rd,
North Shore City,
New Zealand.

3) Gladys Mitchell, Michigan, <gmitchell10@verizon.net>.

Dear Sir:

I sincerely hope that you will take into consideration all the negatives involved in water fluoridation before you take any action to implement it. There is good reason why 7,000 environmental scientists here in the USA are calling for a moratorium on this practice. I don't want to bore you with a long list but just for one: fluoride accumulates in the body like lead and arsenic, inflicting damage over long periods of time and fluoride is more toxic than lead. Why would you want to force your citizens to ingest this poison?

Sincerely, Gladys Mitchell, Secretary
Mount Pleasant Citizens For Safe Drinking Water
PO Box 382,
Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48804
An excellent website is: www.fluorideaction.org

4) Bob Brigg, Hawaii Rgbriggs2@aol.com

Dear Sir,

Much of the controversy regarding the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation is not understood by the general public. However -

I do not have a bunch of letters after my name, nor does a person need them to recognize the ridiculousness of medicating via the public water systems. To do so, is mass medication without consent and with absolutely no dose control.

Also, it makes no sense, economically, to fluoridate all of the water that comes from the water taps, when less than one percent reaches the intended targets, the teeth. This alone is most likely why none of the other widespread diseases are being treated via public water systems.

When major USA cities like New York, Boston, Cincinnati and Washington DC, that have been fluoridated for many years, have dental decay rates much higher than the USA average, the validity of the benefit claims must be questioned.

I respectfully suggest that money spend on fluoridation could be put to much better use, and I also suggest that you, with an open mind, further investigate the issue.

Respectfully,

Robert Briggs
Retired Engineer
720 Kanaha st
Kailua, Hawaii 96734

5) Lorna Rosenstein, Utah, lorna@xmission.com>.

Dear Sir,

In 2000, our county voted to add 'fluoride' to the water. Nearly everything we were told turned out to be factually incorrect.

The cost was represented by the proponents to be $1.38 per person per year or about $348,000. To date, the cost to our county has been close to 5 million dollars. We didn't add fluoride.

We didn't add a fluorine substance from the mineral apatite, as proponents represented, we added hydro(hexa)fluosilicic acid (H2SiF6), a waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. It will be the same substance you will likely use. Some of the contaminants reported present in H2SiF6 include arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, silica, fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, iron, iodine, lead, lead 210, mercury, phosphorus, polonium 210, radon 222, selenium, silica, silver, oil based defoamers, dioxins, polymers, petroleum products, naphthalene, chlorides, sulfides and synspar. It off-gasses hydrogen fluoride. In less than two years, our infrastructure evidenced serious corrosion. I've included a picture of the corrosion. Instead of the infrastructure lasting from 20-50 years, it will need to be replaced within 7-10 years.

The vote was presented before all the facts were known. Anyone who questioned the fiscal or environmental impact or the myriad risks to the known subsets was labeled "anti-fluoridationists" and their concerns trivialized. The proponents hid behind poor children with dental decay, vehement in their unwillingness to allow true public debate. Now the response is, "We've invested all this money, we can't stop now."

Please do your homework. Look at the reason the majority of unions representing scientists and researchers of the EPA are calling for a moratorium on artificial fluoridation substances. Less that 1% of all the water you will fluoridate will be ingested. Which entity assumes the liabilities? The risks far outweigh any purported benefits.

Many individuals and groups oppose fluoridation. In our State, there is the Safe Drinking Water Association, which opposes the practice as well as my organization, Waterwatch of Utah, which opposes the practice not only because of the ineffectiveness against tooth decay, but also because of the damage it does to water systems and the surrounding environment. Nationally, there are more groups than I can list. Internationally, there are scores of professionals, scientists and toxicologists who also oppose the practice.

I can assure you, the water professionals in our State wish they never had to deal with this substance. It is dangerous, costly and a tremendous waste of money. They all agree it would have been cheaper to hire a dentist.

Respectfully,
Lorna Rosenstein
www.waterwatchofutah.com

1421 East 300 North
Layton, Ut 84040

6) David McRae, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, <djmcrae@ncable.net.au>.

Dear Premier Beattie,

I believe you have an open mind and a desire to improve the lot of Queenslanders - and for that reason I draw your attention to some grave errors being propagated by your health minister, Stephen Robertson, regarding the alleged safety and benefits of water fluoridation.

As you have already been advised in submissions from numerous health experts and citizens, fluoridation may have serious, undesirable health effects on consumers, as well as violating the fundamental right of your citizens to free choice in medicinal intake.

I have been shown a letter that Mr Robertson MP wrote to Mrs J Beauchamp, on 3rd February 2006. He defends and supports water fluoridation for Queensland, but unfortunately a number of his statements are clear, factual errors. I fear greatly that both you and he have been getting biased, poor advice from advisors with professional / vested interests in propping up the outdated idea of pumping fluoride into people's bodies via the water supply.

THE ERRORS
For brevity I comment here on only two of the serious errors in the letter.

Error #1 - NHMRC
In his third paragraph Mr Robertson writes: "The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) supports the use of water fluoridation to improve oral health".
Not correct. Because so many of the fluoridation promoters have been making this claim over the last few years I wrote to the NHMRC myself to ask if the claim is correct. On 21st December 2005 Professor Adele Green, Chair of the Health Advisory Committee at the NHMRC replied to me:

"[NHMRC] neither supports nor criticises fluoridation of drinking water supplies." She further wrote that "supporting fluoridation" is a matter for the states and territories and not for the NHMRC. The rest of the letter described how NHMRC commenced a review of fluoridation in 1998, supposed to last some years, to identify how much fluoride Australians are exposed to, adverse health effects and other matters. Professor Green stated that the review was aborted in 2002 due to "lack of sufficient resources" to properly carry out the work.

Thus NHMRC has no up-to-date knowledge of the advisability or otherwise of fluoridation for Brisbane, nor anywhere else.

NHMRC has clearly withdrawn its "support" of fluoridation, but for obvious reasons ('egg on the face', etc.) has neglected to inform other agencies.

I respectfully suggest that you contact NHMRC to confirm the above, and then instruct your minister to withdraw this misleading claim from his fluoridation promotion activities.

Error #2 - tooth decay in Brisbane

Mr Robertson writes of Brisbane 5 and 6 year olds having 50% more decay than kids in fluoridated cities. But these claims are repeated, parrot-like, by fluoridation promoters right across Australia. Every new city that is targeted for fluoridation is subject to the claim that it has 50% (sometimes 40% or 60%) more decay than the fluoridated cities. It is part of the standard package of promotional materials these people are given.

The claims are utterly meaningless unless the claimant can point to a properly conducted scientific study that assesses tooth decay by the same criteria in a controlled manner, and also corrects for the confounding influences such as socio-economic differences. This kind of 50% difference does not show up anywhere else in the world, and is almost certainly "spin" used around Australia.

In the case of Brisbane it should be noted that the readily accessible data for tooth decay over the last 5 decades show that Brisbane 12 year olds had an average of 8 teeth affected by decay back in 1960. Most other capital cities had an average of 6.0 to 6.5. In other words, in the pre-fluoridation era Brisbane kids had the worst teeth of Australian capital cities. Since then, without fluoridation, the Brisbane figure has reduced to about 1 to 1.4, depending on which year is measured. The other capital cities, mostly fluoridated, have reduced to the same figure, 1 to 1.4.

Reductions in tooth decay, DMFT, over last 5 decades:

Brisbane: 8 DMFT > approx. 1 DMFT (no fluoridation)
Other capitals: 6 DMFT > approx. 1 DMFT (with fluoridation)

Brisbane has experienced the greatest reduction in decay of any capital city over the fluoridation era. But Brisbane never fluoridated!

It is possible Brisbane kids have slightly higher tooth decay that some other capital cities, in certain survey years, but certainly nothing like 50%. And it is the permanent teeth that are the best indicator of whether the program is working. Measurements of 5-6 year olds can show all sorts of variations due to statistical anomalies.

You must measure dental disease in the permanent teeth, particularly into teenage years and into the twenties to see if fluoridation is having a GENUINE effect. Amongst teenagers and adults Brisbane people can be shown to have ZERO difference in decay to the other cities. Melbourne, fluoridated for 30 years, is now generally accepted as being the worst in Australia.

I trust that these comments are of assistance to you in evaluating fluoridation.

Yours sincerely
David J McRae
Coordinator, Victorian Fluoride Information Network

7) Mrs Patricia Wheeldon, Kempsey, NSW, Australia, tonegunman@tsn.cc>.

Dear Premier Beattie,

Please send a copy of this submission to your Q'ld health minister. If you forward the relevant email details to myself, I will ensure that this is followed up but unfortunately, I do not have his email listing. I need your help . . . we all need your help in ensuring that the unsafe practice of fluoridation is finished, as it is long overdue.

I'm originally from Queensland and lived for years in Brisbane, having been born in Nambour.

Please know my disgust at fluoridationist tactics in NSW, where it is being forced on an unwilling population. Councillors from Hastings, Kempsey, Coffs Harbour and Bellingen have all written, expressing their disgust at the way NSW Health has pursued this issue.

Know that, along with the attached information I have submitted to various groups in this Valley, the peak medical body of Australia (the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia has 'backed off' from supporting fluoridation). See the following excerpt from email and note that they no longer support fluoridation . . . the CWA, Diabetes Aust and Cancer Council of Aust. 'have no policy' on fluoridation, despite lies printed by NSW Health Dept claiming 'endorsements' by these groups.

The ADA and AMA are private medical bodies, do no research and have admitted such. (The ADA refuses to admit any problems with amalgams despite the fact that the WHO and the NHMRC listed concerns about these - the WHO states amalgams are responsible for the body of mercury in our systems while NHMRC states one should not have amalgams if one is pregnant, kidney impaired or a child).

Regards,
Patricia Wheeldon (Mrs)
Summer Island Rd
via Kempsey NSW 2440

THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FAN Bulletin #475: VICTORY in New Zealand.

Feb 11, 2006.
Dear All,

It is unofficial at the moment but our sources indicate that the opponents of fluoridation won the referendum in Wanganui by about 2 to 1 (approximately 12,000 to 4,000). We will send you more information when this is announced officially. You can see more on the battle for Wanganui at the web site of the local group at <http://www.saynotofluoridation.org.nz>.

Meanwhile, opponents of fluoridation in Hamilton, NZ, (council is going to vote on the issue March 7) received a big boost to their campaign when they gained some important support from a professor at the local university (see the article below from today's Waikato Times).

Paul Connett
From: paul@fluoridealert.org

Stop Fluoride, Says Academic
by Geoff Taylor

New Zealand health authorities have locked themselves into a position and are ignoring the scientific evidence about the dangers of fluoride, according to a Waikato University academic.
Ted Ninnes, who co-ordinates the university's social sciences programme, said at least 800 peer-reviewed, published scientific studies now existed showing links between fluoride and health problems. Yet fluoridation of water was now an integral part of the Health Ministry's policy and named in its publications as one of its 13 health strategies.

Some Health Ministry and Waikato District Health Board employees had the role of promoting fluoride included in their employment contracts. "It makes it very hard for them to look at any evidence which is critical of fluoride," he said. Dr Ninnes said his research had led him to support a referendum on the issue which Hamilton City Council is to debate on February 20. He wanted to see fluoridation stopped as a precautionary measure. "Water fluoridation should be stopped until such time as it has been proven that it is ethically justified, proven safe and is effective in improving oral health."

But Waikato Medical Officer of Health, Felicity Dumble, rejected his assertions, saying authorities were simply committed to maintaining the health of the population.

She said the Health Ministry weighed up all the evidence available. "We are always looking out for something new. Obviously the Ministry of Health and Waikato District Health Board would alter our stance if there was anything to suggest fluoride was unsafe or didn't work," she said.
Dr Ninnes, who delivered a paper on fluoride at a national sociology conference last year, said corrupted science was responsible for many studies supporting fluoride.
Dr Ninnes said the history of fluoridation in the US had seen science become "the handmaiden of industrial giants" such as the Sugar Research Foundation of America and Superphosphate companies which produced fluoride as a toxic by-product.

Scientists who came up with contrary findings were often discredited and only one side of the fluoride story had been presented to the public.
Dr Dumble said there were no other influences involved in the Health Ministry's decision-making on fluoride.
"It's purely a health decision. I have to live with myself. Also I live in Hamilton and I don't want my children to be drinking fluoridated water if its going to harm them."

Dr Ninnes likened the fluoride debate to that around dioxin, which he said for years was backed by health authorities until the evidence was too powerful to ignore.

"Governments in New Zealand and the United States refused to accept scientific evidence of the toxicity of dioxin to humans for 30 years, even though the scientific evidence of its toxicity was overwhelming. You seem to have to wait until its overwhelming before they do anything."
11 February 2006
Fan_bulletins@lists.fluoridealert.org
http://lists.fluoridealert.org/listinfo/fan_bulletins