Letters To The Editor

The Fluoride Controversy
  
   Two weeks ago, a Mirror editorial chided the Santa Monica City Council for violating the right of Santa Monica residents to choose what they wanted
   to put in their bodies when it voted (by a 4-3 vote) to proceed with plans to put fluoride in the City’s water supply.
   Because it is a highly controversial issue, we expected to receive letters, but we did not expect to get so many letters from other countries. Herewith, some of the letters — from here and abroad.
   Peggy Clifford
   Editor

   A shame
  
   To the editor:
   Your editorial was a masterpiece of cogency on the ethics of the controversy over fluoride delivery via a public water supply. Our union of EPA HQ professionals has long opposed the practice on both ethical and scientific (health risks) bases. It is indeed a shame that some people with the power to do so also assume they have the knowledge and authority to prescribe medication to an entire population.
   William Hirzy
   Chemist Residence (American University) and Vice-President, NTEU chapter 280 (U.S.EPA HQ Professionals’ Union)
  
   An extreme
   waste
  
   To the editor:
   Sincere applause to Peggy Clifford for the editorial in the Santa Monica Mirror in opposition to the hazardous proposal to add fluoride chemicals to the public water supply. It is very much appreciated by those of us who are aware of its health risks, and by all who value our freedom to choose.
   Current evidence shows that fluoridation has failed to significantly or permanently reduce tooth decay, and that there is no proof of safety. On 10/21/99, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that the predominant effect of fluoride is topical, not systemic. This makes water fluoridation ineffective, unnecessary, and an extreme waste of taxpayer dollars!
   Adverse effects at levels even below the so-called “low,” “optimal” level of one part per million (1 ppm) are 0reported in the Physicians Desk Reference (PDR), the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP), Federal Register, and many scientific studies. Side effects include mottled teeth (dental fluorosis), headaches, nausea, skin eruptions, and stomach distress. Recent studies point to increased hip fractures, osteosarcoma, and higher blood lead levels in children. Total fluoride exposure is far greater than was ever intended. Fluoride is a prescription drug, is cumulative, and a potent enzyme inhibitor. Segments at greater risk include those with kidney or thyroid impairment, with an intolerance to fluoride, infants, the malnourished, high water consumers, among others,.
   There is a worldwide petition now in circulation reflecting the concerns of scientists delving into the fluoridation issue.
   Improving the dental health of children is important, but fluoridation is not the answer. In fact, dental authorities are now recommending NO fluoride for babies from birth to six months!
   Virtually all of Western Europe chooses not to fluoridate. Albany, our New York State’s capital, rejected fluoridation after examining the facts.. Among many other areas throughout the country, Long Island, N.Y., comprising almost 3 million people, rejects fluoridation. We hope those lawmakers in your area who voted for fluoridation rethink their position and rescind their mandate to add fluoride chemicals to your public drinking water. Their constituents deserve to have their health protected and their rights respected.
   New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
   Paul S. Beeber, Esq., President and General Counsel
  
   Rare
   occasion
  
   To the editor:
   It is a rare occasion for an editor to air a personal opinion about why fluoridation is a violation of people’s rights. In fact, so rare that the news made it all the way to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK.
   I applaud your courage and journalistic integrity. Too many editors seem bound by protocols that disallow such comments.
   I particularly love the point you made about a lawyer, a pharmacist, an architect and a consultant on historic preservation are not qualified to prescribe medications for anyone, much less everyone.
   Keep up your great work,
   Ailsa Boyden
   Australia.
  
   Chose
   filtration
  
   To the editor:
   Thank you for your well-written editorial about keeping flouride out of drinking water. I appreciate the time and well-crafted points you put into your piece. I’ve chosen to put in an expensive reverse osmosis filtration system in my kitchen to get the flouride out of my water. Hopefully, your words will save many from having to do so in Santa Monica.
   I received a copy of your editorial from the IFIN email service.
   Elly Brosius
   Centreville VA
  
   Data on
   Fluoride
  
   To environmental-health advocates, and others:
   What follows is important data about the fluoridation chemical, SODIUM FLUORIDE, the planned industrial “health agent” to be soon placed daily into SM’s municipal water. As we know, all local humans, animals and aquatic life to consume or be exposed to this modified water will be effected. How? is the question, of course, that concerns many of us.
   After a divisive hour-long fluoridation confrontation at a recent City Council meeting (Jan 22, City Hall), what now seems quite clear is the deciding CC’s deciding majority (4-3) is unlikely to have an intimate grounding for answering that at this time, as the following was confirmed. This Council has never ordered technical studies to be conducted. At least, that’s what the impassioned minority-voting members candidly revealed. Also: no Environmental Impact Report; no Risk Assessment study; and the City “in three years... has never ordered any technical analysis to be done” as stated one dissenting Council member.
   A request by the City’s esteemed Environmental Task Force to conduct—at no cost to the City— a limited Risk Assessment Study was rejected at this meeting. Also rejected by the same majority were ALL other motions made for more deeply scrutinizing the fluoridation process. (That’s on the record.)
   Those deciding members are: Mayor Richard Bloom, Herb Katz, Pam O’Connor, and Robert Holbrook. The strongly dissenting minority members are: Mayor pro tem Kevin McKeown, Michael Feinstein, and Ken Genser.
   Evidence for safety? According to our and others’ lengthy and intensive research, there’s not ONE generally respected study demonstrating the health or environmental safety for these fluoridation chemicals. Highly under-publicized testimony for such insufficient safety is provided by three-landmark judicial rulings in Pittsburgh, 1978; Alton, Illinois, 1981; and in Houston, Texas, 1982. (HIGHLIGHTS IN NORTH AMERICAN LITIGATION DURING THE 20TH CENTURY ON ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, J. Graham, LLB and P-J Moran, PhD; in Journ. of Land Use & Environ. Law, Spring 1999, v 4, no. 2.) These findings against this artificial fluoridation process, to our knowledge, have never been over-ruled nor contradictory findings established.
   Despite these findings and those of over 1500+ scientific professionals at the US EPA’s Union headquarters, the SM City Council’s entrenched majority believes otherwise. There now seems little doubt to some this politically-driven mandate by the present CC majority-four intends to follow the lead of one its members who, in wrapping up, stated, “I think we should move ahead...We already debated and voted for fluoridation wrong, right, or indifferent.”
   Now to the fluoridation chemical itself scheduled for Santa Monica. Please note the ingredient, “ Heavy Metals (as Lead)” [=.1% to our figuring]:
   http://www.lciltd.com/pds/pdssf.htm
   Sodium Fluoride
   Product Data Sheet
   Chemical AnalysisTypical
   Purity (NaF)98.00 % Minimum
   Silica (SiO200.50 % Maximum
   Free Alkali (as Na2CO3)00.50 % Maximum
   Free Acid (as HF)00.10 % Maximum
   Sulfates00.30 % Maximum
   Water Insoluble Matter00.50 % Maximum
   Heavy Metals (as Lead)10 ppm Maximum
   Physical Properties
   DescriptionCrystalline, white, free-flowing crystalline material
   Specific Gravity (H2O=1)2.56 @ 25°C
   Molecular Weight42.00
   Solubility in H2O4.1% @ 25°C
   Bulk Density1.44 g/cm3 (90 lb/ft3)
   Typical Screens:98% min passing through a 20 mesh
   50% min retained on a 100 mesh
   5% max passing through a 325 mesh
   Containers
   Paper Bags25 Kg net weight
   Freight Description
   DOT Shipping NameSodium Fluoride
   DOT Shipping ClassificationClass 6.1
   UN 1690Labels and Placards: Toxic
   Packing Group III
   Country of Origin: China
   Properties
   It is a white odorless material available either as a powder or in the form of crystals of various sizes.
   Manufacture
   Sodium Fluoride is produced by neutralizing Hydrofluorosilicic acid with caustic soda (NaOh).
   Uses
   Commercial laundry. Laundry souring agent
   Manufacture of vitreous enamels
   Manufacture of coated papers
   Wood preservative
   Water fluoridation
   The information presented herein is based on data considered to be accurate and that reflects the requirements of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standards in effect as of the date of preparation of the Product Specification Sheet. However, no warranty or representation, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the foregoing data and safety information. In addition, no responsibility can be assumed by vendor for any damage or injury resulting from abnormal use, from any failure to adhere to recommended practices or from any hazards inherent in the nature of the product.
   Lucier Chemical Industries 415 Pablo Avenue North Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250 Telephone 904 241.1200 Fax 904 241.1220
   More objections for delaying this F process pending the production of convincing safety data are highly encouraged. This is a serious matter that must not be rushed without thorough due diligence in this or any other community.
   Gene Burke
   Santa Monicans for Safe Drinking Water
  
   Human
   rights
  
   To the editor:
   It was truly refreshing to read your piece on fluoridation and I loved the way you cut straight to the chase — people should be allowed decide individually whether to consume fluoride or not and not have it forced on them.
   I wish more people in the media — especially here in Ireland — would take your human-rights respecting approach to the issue.
   With best wishes,
   Sean Callagy,
   Sligo, Ireland
  
   Wake
   Up, Santa Monica
  
   To the editor:
   LIES; FLORIDA; SUPPRESS AFRICAN-AMERICANS; CORPORATE PROFIT from DUMPING; some well-meaning people assisting; and POLITICAL CLOUT.
   That line-up sounds like a summary of the Bush Adm., does it not? Lies are rampant, Florida ballots and vote-counting manipulated while eligible to vote blacks are ousted from voting rolls by a Texas company, and many corporations are making a mint since the feds no longer care about enforcing pollution laws. A number of especially religious folks consider themselves to be helping the moral fiber of America by backing Bush, yet it is clear that corporate greed is the force behind it all.
   Well, I am referring to approved plans to dump fluoride, arsenic, lead, and other contaminants in Santa Monica’s water supply. The Bush Administration lies are blatant to many, but lies have been occurring to bolster the bottom line for a long time. For instance, as a lot of fluoride wastes were created in the nuclear bomb program and other industries during World War II, the Surgeon-General began to say in 1945 that fluoride was good for you — and the AMA and ADA agreed soon thereafter to the point that if they now admitted that these were toxic substances, they would be more likely to face huge tobacco industry-type lawsuits. Florida-based superphosphate fertilizer industries had to install smokestack scrubbers due to the deadly toll fluoride contaminants in the air had on the countryside. But the substance caught in these smokestacks kept eating through waste barrels and were expensive to dispose of, so the plan was hatched (with the medical establishment being happy participants) to convince people that fluoride was good for kid’s teeth so that money could be made (rather than tens-to-hundreds of millions spent) to dispose of this Class I toxic waste.
   Regarding African-Americans, they have twice the dental fluorosis rate as other races — dental fluorosis also indicates skeletal fluorosis as well. So-called fluoridation especially targets “municipal” water supplies, and guess which race predominately congregates there? As far as good people assisting, most people backing fluoridation are well-meaning people. If a couple dozen fluoridation proponents spoke at a council hearing, it is probable that two or three realize that it is toxic and designed to help industry profit from waste-dumping. In Santa Monica, I am sure that all or nearly all of the SMRR women’s group and PTA who back adding these substances to our water actually believe they are helping disadvantaged youngsters, as well as those doing good work for a living wage who have not carefully examined the issue.
   And now to political clout. Dumping contaminants in our water supply is not on SMRR’s radar screen, despite the negative impact to renters and others in the community. The medical industry and PTA-types have been hoodwinked by historic lies and more recent PR to come aboard, and proponents of the dumping into our water supply could generate substantial funds to put out hit ads on candidates who oppose mandatory fluoridation and accuse them of not caring about our kids. There is almost no on-the-ground activity to protect our choice about what goes in our water supply in Santa Monica. Environmental pro-choice Councilmembers realize that a large movement needs to take place to oppose the toxic-dumping plan, so will not lead a daily charge against this menace. At least some Councilmembers backing safe drinking water speak reasonably well at the actual hearings on the subject, but they want to get along with their colleagues, so will not deliver the real hard-hitting truth. That truth is that the essence of the debate is DISPOSAL COST AVOIDANCE, and while most of the pro-dumping Councilmembers were likely naive enough to believe that they were doing the right thing in votes a couple years ago, most have likely found out in the meantime that there is the solid peer-reviewed science on the side of those concerned about dumping fluoride, arsenic, and lead in our water supply — yet the political clout and campaign contributions are skewed toward using our water supply as a dumping ground to help agribusiness profits and guarantee future business for the medical industry.
   Please wake up, Santa Monica, and don’t let the contaminants being dumped in L.A. City water since August, 1999 spread to your city to degrade your health and environment through both ingestion and absorption pathways!
   Bruce Campbell
   Brentwood
  
   Health
   fascists
  
   To the editor:
   Many thanks for your piece on fluoridation - which is most certainly a violation of human rights. So often, the people are bamboozled with the notion that human rights and civil liberties are the same, when they are not.
   Here in the UK, the Blair Government has just passed a new Water Act, which includes a clause which gives health authorities power to order water companies (private companies here!) to fluoridate, after “public Consultations.” We are well used to such public relations exercises — devices designed by experts to get their own way!
   Moreover, how can health authorities “publicly consult” on my human rights?
   I read that many American cities have referenda on fluoridation. Absolutely crazy! How can my neighbour vote on what I will put into my body, if he thinks it’s good for me?
   Only 10% of the UK is artificially fluoridated - and that’s 10% too much. We have recently launched a “Yellow Card” campaign nationally — aimed at the water companies. (Here, a “yellow card” is a football term - the referee shows a yellow card to a player as a warning.).
   I appreciate your straight thinking. May heaven preserve us all from health fascists!
   Best wishes from the United Kingdom,
   Jane Jones
   Campaign Director
   National Pure Water Association
  
   Right to
   choose
  
   To the editor:
   It is with complete gratitude and thankfulness that I write to commend you on such an articulate and eloquent yet bold article of yours that recently appeared in the Santa Monica Mirror, namely “A Violation of Rights”.
   I truely appreciate the view expressed there-in, particularly “ ... that every one of us has the right to choose what he or she will ingest, and we also believe that the government - city, county, state or federal - does not have the right to force-feed anything to people ...” and “... no one on City staff is qualified to prescribe medications for anyone, much less everyone ...”
   Such comment is very refreshing and uplifting. I congratulate you for your conviction of your beliefs about the rights of the individual vs government and for the courage to write what you have.
   Well done & best regards,
   Brett Laboo
   Canberra, Australia
  
   Thank you
  
   To the editor:
   It’s so clear when you say it, “...government - city, county, state or federal - does not have the right to force-feed anything to people.
   “The very idea is grotesque.”
   And, “...no one on City staff is qualified to prescribe medications for anyone, much less everyone.”
   As a purchaser of bottled water in Arnold, Maryland, due to my theory fluoride may partially explain my chronic disabling condition, I so appreciate your clear thoughts and powerful words on the subject of medicating an entire populace with fluoride. Your words seem powerful and clear enough to help a proponent or two of fluoridation question their ideas. Maybe enough to change their vote.
   Thank you so much.
   Toni Marshall
   Arnold, Maryland
  
   Be
   wary
  
   To the editor:
   Re your article pointing out the violation of individual rights that is water fluoridation, I wonder how many of your readers question how their Mayor (Bloom) — a lawyer — can be in favour of fluoridation when the primary duty of elected representatives is to protect their electors’ rights.
   Whom does Mayor Bloom serve —- the unelected experts or the electors of Santa Monica ?
   As for another supporter of fluoridation, Pharmacist Bob Holbrook, how can he favour dosing people with industrial waste products (silicofluorides) that are ‘registered poisons’ in the England and have never been safety tested in the US, Europe or anywhere else ?
   How can Councilman Holbrook simply ignore his ethical responsibilities when supporting the addition of poisons to the drinking water of Santa Monicans ? This practice is unscientific, unethical and unlawful according to UK pharmacist Paul Clein
   Or are are the ethics which apply to pharmacists in Santa Monica so different from those that apply in England ?
   Santa Monicans need more council memners like Feinstein, Genser and McKeown and should be wary of the views of those council members whose support for fluoridation vioates the very principles of their own professions.
   By the way, we in Ireland had our rights to refuse a medication without informed consent taken away in 1963 by similarly misguided politicians but that was at a time when the medical experts were also in favour of thalidomide. To their continuing shame they have remained silent in face of the total rejection of this policy by all other mainland European countries.Only 2% of the enlarged European Union of 450 million people have silicofluorides added to their drinking water.
   Why should Santa Monicans in 2004 become victims of this now totally discredited practice ?
   Robert Pocock
   VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment
  
   Lone
   voice
  
   To the editor:
   You’re a lone voice in the wilderness, and I congratulate you for your taking a brave position. Wish more would speak publicly, instead of preaching to the choir!!
   Sasha in Detroit
  
   Poison?
  
   To the editor:
   I’m writing from Bolton in England (UK) a town of 300,000 who are currently in the process of debating water fluoridation.
   I am Chairman of Bolton Against Fluoridation Group and I have worked in the chemicals Industry as a technologist for a multinational phosphate manufacturing company.
   I don’t profess to be an expert but anyone with any ounce of chemistry knowledge will tell you that the fluoride ion is one of the most reactive elements. It is poisonous.
   Its effects on the body’s enzymes system is visible in dental fluorosis. It allows lead to be absorbed into the brain at a faster rate. In those terms it has the potential to react with anything in the body that chooses to do so.
   Save the fact that the source of the material is questionable at best in the presence of heavy metals (Toxic waste removal systems) then it is potentially the WORST thing you could want to put into your body.
   Ian Upton
   United Kingdom
  
   Amen!
  
   To the editor:
   Re: Your editorial on water fluoridation
   AMEN, AMEN, and AMEN! Congratulations for saying something in print that is so simple, so clear, and so exactly right!
   My favorite paragraph is the one below. I wish that that one paragraph could be shouted from the rooftops, in every city in the United States.
   “We don’t know how many residents want fluoride in their water, and we don’t think it matters, because this is not a question that can or should be decided for all of the people by some of the people. Nor do we know whether fluoride is good or bad for people, and we’re not sure anyone does. But we believe that every one of us has the right to choose what he or she will ingest, and we also believe that the government - city, county, state or federal - does not have the right to force-feed anything to people.
   “The very idea is grotesque.”
   You said it brilliantly! Kudos! And thank you.
   Mary Ann Wilson
   Santa Monica