HAMILTON RESULT CONFIRMS DOUBT ABOUT FLUORIDATION Press Release, 15 May 2006 How ironic that in the same week that renewed doubts emerge about the safety of Teflon (1), that Hamilton should vote to fluoridate its water supply”, says Fluoride Action Network spokesperson Caren McConnell.
PFOA, per-fluoro-octanoic acid (aka “C8”) from Telfon,
is toxic when inhaled and persists in the environment. These
compounds (also found in the controversial Scotchguard) have
been detected in the blood of children throughout the States
as well as in animals at both North and South Poles.
Although PFOAs and the hydrofluosilicic acid (HFA) added to
water supplies are different, they illustrate an important
point that many Hamiltonians obviously missed: ALL fluoride
compounds are toxic. None are ‘nutritious’.
Fluorine is the most electronegative of all the Elements and
is extremely reactive – it is not a “passive spectator”
of chemical reactions (2). In Nature fluorine is bound
safely in rock minerals, but is liberated by heavy industry
– particularly aluminium smelting and phosphate fertiliser
manufacture. HFA is the concentrated toxic waste product
from the latter (3).
“Both Teflon and HFA have sordid histories initiated by
corporate greed, but sanctioned by government (4). New
Zealanders are urged to read Christopher Bryson’s
investigative expose` ‘The Fluoride Deception’ to
understand how corporate America gave fluoride’s image the
Ultimate Makeover and ‘sold’ it to the world (5). NZ is
one of the very few remaining nations that practices
fluoridation, and with an official fervour bordering on the
obsessive.
When fluoridation was first proposed in the US in the
1940’s, dentists and doctors were amongst the loudest
objectors, but most were eventually worn down. This from the
Journal of the American Dental Association 1961: “We cannot
escape the fact that fluoridation has been wrested from the
hands of the scientist and deposited squarely in the middle
of the political arena. Fluoridation is now a political
problem.”(6)
Certainly the recent Hamilton referendum reeks of political
interference.
Says Ms McConnell, “WATCH (Waikato Against Toxic &
Chemical Hazards) together with local FANNZ supporters, are
obviously disappointed that our water will be deliberately
polluted for a while longer yet. We don’t believe the
outcome is a true reflection of informed public opinion at
all. The cards were largely stacked against us – tens of
thousands of ‘official’ dollars have been spent on
glossy rhetoric.”
As announced last week, FANNZ is compiling a complaint to
the State Services Commission regarding the integrity of
Waikato DHBs behaviour and promotional information in this
regard.
“Despite the outcome, our campaign has still been
successful in many ways – we’re confident that we’ve
raised awareness about the issue in Hamilton. Over 10,000
votes against fluoridation can’t be entirely ignored –
we will be asking that the city council provide access to
non-fluoridated water for those that want to pick it up,”
says Ms McConnell.
“We also believe its reasonable that the Council formally
request that the DHB fulfils the World Health Organisation
requirement to monitor background fluoride exposure in the
population (7), and carries out the NZ Public Health
Commissions 1995 recommendation to identify
fluoride-sensitive persons (believed to be 1% of the
population).”(8)
Fluoride accumulates in the body, and over-exposure can
cause hip/joint problems including fractures, arthritis and
osteoporosis, as well as thyroid disorders. People with
kidney problems are also susceptible to fluoride poisoning.
New evidence indicates that over-dose occurs at much lower
exposure levels than previously thought and may even be
related to lowered IQ and ADHD-like symptoms in children
(9). Despite the risks, and MoH’s glaring lack of
evidence, our politico-health officials insist that once
diluted, fluorides from HFA are benign.
As is the case with Teflon (1), scientists from both US
Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental
Working Group have opposed water fluoridation for many
years. Dr William Marcus said in 1998 that “Fluoride is a
carcinogen by any standard we use” (11) . Research
published this year showed 5-fold increased risk of
osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in boys living in fluoridated
water areas – a Colgate-funded Harvard professor is being
investigated for hitherto suppressing the results of this
study (12).
Significantly, a class action lawsuit is now being prepared
in the US for osteosarcoma victims, against fluoridation
promoters(13). Whangarei dentist and fluoridation opponent
Lawrie Brett was quoted on National Radio last week as
saying that fluoridation promoters in New Zealanders would
be wise to plan their ‘exit strategies’ (14).
In the meantime though, FANNZ members nationwide are
preparing to face the latest onslaught of taxpayer-funded
propaganda as proponents target unsuspecting Northlanders
and Cantabrians who currently enjoy the benefits of
non-fluoridated water.
Caren McConnell BScTech
07-849-7587, or 021-124-8656
Publicity Officer
Fluoride Action Network (NZ) Inc
www.fannz.org.nz
www.fluorideaction.net
REFERENCES
1. Health fears persist over non-stick pots and pans, 12 May
2006
2. The Taming Of Fluorine; Royal Society of Chemistry online
magazine
3. Material Safety Data Sheet for Hydrofluosilicic Acid,
Orica Chemicals (esp pages 2,4), as attached or see
www.watch.org.nz
4. DuPont Hid Teflon Pollution For Decades, 13 December 2002
5. The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson (Seven
Stories Press; 2004, 2006)
6. “We cannot escape the fact that fluoridation has been
wrested from the hands of the scientist and deposited
squarely in the middle of the political arena. Fluoridation
is now a political problem.
– Journal of the American Dental Association 1961
7. Fluorides and Oral Health, World Health Organization
Technical Report (1994), Series 846: “Dental and Public
health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride
exposure in the population before introducing any additional
fluoride programme for caries prevention.”
8. Prenatal and Postnatal Ingestion of Fluorides –
Fourteen Years of Investigation: Final Report. Feltman, R &
Kosel, G. Journal of Dental Medicine, 16:190, Oct 1961.
9. Fluoride foes get validation, Portland Tribune 24 March
2006
“The NAS report showed “that you can protect your
children’s teeth by brushing them, and you can protect
their bones by getting rid of fluoride in tap water,” Tim
Kropp, a toxicologist for the Washington, D.C.-based
Environmental Working Group.”
10. Dr. J. William Hirzy, Senior Vice-President,
Headquarters Union, US Environmental Protection Agency,
March 26, 2001: “In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an
unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so
great and the purported benefits associated with it are so
small – if there are any at all – that requiring every man,
woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal
behavior on the part of governments.”
11. Dr. William Marcus, PhD, EPA scientist writing in the
Food and Water Journal, Summer, 1998: “Fluoride is a
carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe the EPA should
act immediately to protect the public, not just on the
cancer data but on the evidence of bone fractures,
arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects.”
12. Fluoride Debate May Surge As Treated Water Linked To
Cancer, 6 April 2006
13. US lawfirm Waters & Kraus: preparing a class action
lawsuit against fluoridation promoters on behalf of victims
of osteosarcoma.
14. Whangarei dentist Lawrie Brett, as quoted on National
Radio, 12 May 2006