HomeMy WebLinkAboutP0 - Public Comments-P lt_f; .,�U - ql as 10 -7
Union of EPA Professionals Opposes Fluoridation.(Environmental Protection Agency) 1rk��
From: Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients I Date: 5/1/2001 1 Author: Klotter, Jule d
'Ei�.7rt�?tt O
.NNb`Mi flN'E.iKCd'«
On June 29, 2000, Dr. J. William Hirzy, Vice - President of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280,
testified before the US Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water. The union represents the
professional employees, including scientists, engineers, and lawyers, of the Environmental Protection Agency in
Washington, D.C. The union voted to oppose water fluoridation in 1997. In his statement before the Subcommittee, Dr.
Hirzy, who is a toxicologist, explained why the union opposes fluoridation and asked for a national review of current
fluoridation policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. He noted the lack of research on the long -term effects of
fluoride exposure and pointed out research that links fluoride toxicity to bone pathology, including cancer, and to
diverse brain and neurological problems.
Dental fluorosis, the only officially- recognized negative consequence of over - exposure to fluoride, is a mottling of teeth
that the Centers for Disease Control, the EPA, and the American Dental Association consider simply 'cosmetic.' Dr.
Hirzy explained to the Subcommittee that fluorosis is a sign that the body is accumulating more fluoride in its tissue
than metabolic processes can handle: "We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the
effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children."
A two -year study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), using rats and mice, linked sodium fluoride in
drinking water to osteosarcoma (bone cancer). "The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other
than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's
ability to cause mutations (a principal trigger' mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous)... and data showing
increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated
water." Dr. Hirzy told the Subcommittee that the initial results of the National Toxicology Program study, published in
1990, "would have ended fluoridation." Instead, a special commission reviewed the initial report and changed the NTP's
findings of 'clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats'to'equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.' Senior
Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the EPA's Office of Drinking Wat er, Dr. William Marcus, publicly objected to the
change and was then fired. A judge later ordered that he be reinstated with back pay and damages.
In addition to asking for an independent review of the tumor slides from the NTP bioassay, the union asked the
Subcommittee to "order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying
overdose during growth and development years, for behavioral and other disorders" Since 1994, animal studies have
shown that a prenatal exposure to fluoride can result in hyperactive behavior. Fluoride also has adverse effects on the
pineal gland, the brain, and kidneys — even at the 'optimal' dosage of one part per million. Fluoride has also been linked
to lower 10 scores in children.
The union's third recommendation to the Subcommittee was that it order future toxicity studies to use the actual
chemicals — hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt — now used in 90% of fluoridation programs instead of a substitute
chemical. Hydrofluosilicic acid is a toxic waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The EPA states that it cannot
identify any chronic studies using these chemicals. Recent studies have linked these chemicals to elevated lead levels
in children's blood and to anti - social behavior.
Dr. Hirzy told the Subcommittee that "...since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man woman and child
drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL
[Maximum Contaminant Level] that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective
of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an
entire. lifetime."
Meanwhile, the rationale for adding fluoride to the water supply, i.e. prevention of tooth decay, is not being supported
by recent scientific studies. A study involving 39,000 school children (ages 5 -17) found "no significant differences (in
terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non - fluoridated and partially
fluoridated communities." Likewise, a comparison between Newburg, New York, which has fluoridated its water for 50
years, and Kingston, New York, which does not add fluoride to its water, found no appreciable difference in dental
decay. Children in Newburg, however, did show much higher rates of fluorosis. Furthermore, Dr. Hirzy noted that
Europe and the US have about the same rates of tooth decay even though most European countries do not fluoridate
their drinking water.
"Why EPA's Headquarter, Union of Scientist Opposes Fluoridation" by J. William Hirzy, PhD, May 1, 1999.
wwwpenweb. orgfissues/Il uodde /epaunion. htrnl
"Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy Before the Senate Subcommittee" www .nofluodde.com/hirzy_senate/htm
COPYRIGHT 2001 The Townsend Letter Group
Is Your Bathtub a Toxic Dump?
by Andreas Schuld & George Glasser
Earth Island Journal, Summer 2001
The municipal water that your child drinks, bathes and plays in is a complex chemical mixture of
dissolved minerals, contaminants and chemical additives. Chemicals are added to clarify the
water, remove solid particulates and disinfect. And, when fluoride compounds are added to water
supplies, polymers are added to inhibit corrosion of the water pipes.
The skin is the largest organ of the body. In 1991, the EPA concluded that the average person can
absorb more contaminants from bathing and showering than from drinking polluted water.
Children are most at risk. Children's bath times may range from 45 minutes to two hours. As the
EPA acknowledged in a June 30, 1998 report, "Children have a greater surface- area -to -body-
weight ratio than adults, which may lead to increased dermal absorption."
Children's tissues, organs and biological systems are still developing, with several stages of rapid
growth and development occurring from infancy to adolescence. This rapid development,
combined with the immaturity of body organs and systems, predisposes children to potentially
more severe consequences within certain age ranges and windows of vulnerability
Circulatory flow rates are generally higher in children, which may increase a child's susceptibility
to toxic effects. Despite these elevated risks, most toxicological data is based on occupational
exposures for adults.
The Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN) reports that the US has seen "a
worrisome increase" in childhood diseases that may be linked to chemicals in the environment.
According to the CEHN, "The incidence of two types of childhood cancers has risen significantly
over the past 15 years." Acute Iymphocytic leukemia is up 10 percent and brain tumors are up
more than 30 percent. Learning disabilities and attention - deficit disorders also appear to be
http:// www. thirdworl dtraveler. com/ EnvironmentBathtub _Toxic_Dump.htm] 9/20/2007
Is Your Bathtub a Toxic Dump?
increasing.
Toxins in the Bathwater
Page 2 of 4
Depending on whether a child has eaten, or if there is residual food in the stomach, about 20 -50
percent of chemical contaminants are metabolized when foods or beverages are consumed. With
dermal exposure and inhalation, however, virtually 100 percent of the contaminants are absorbed
directly into the bloodstream.
As one EPA scientist put it, "a shower cubicle can be considered an 'exposure chamber.' Exposure
to volatile contaminants absorbed via the lung would be about double the same amount from
drinking water In the bath, underarms (axillal, scrotal and vaginal areas as well as the groin
absorb far greater amounts than in the normal unwashed forearm test."
The percentages for absorption of parathion are as follows: scalp (32 percent), ear canal (46
percent), forehead (36 percent), plant of foot (13 percent), forearm (9 percents palm (12 percent),
and scrotum (100 percent).
A study by Julian Andelman, Professor of Water Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh's
Graduate School of Public Health (published in the May 1984 American Journal of Public
Health), found less chemical
In 1997, the EPA concluded that a person can absorb more contaminants from bathing and
showering than from drinking polluted water. exposure from drinking contaminated water than
from using it to wash clothes or take a shower.
Studies done by Brown, Bishop and Rowan in the early 1980s showed that an average of 64
percent of the total dose of waterborne contaminants is absorbed through the skin.
A study by British researchers at the Health and Safety Laboratory in Sheffield published in the
February 19, 2000 issue of Human Experimental Toxicology suggests that toxicants such as
fluorides can be stored in the skin and released over a period of time.
A review of nearly 40,000 research papers listed on National Institutes of Health and other US
government Internet sites has failed to discover a single study addressing water fluoridation and
dermal absorption.
All dosage recommendations developed by EPA are based on ingestion alone. The EPA and
Centers for Disease Control have never commissioned studies on the dermal absorption of
fluoridated water and refuse to do so.
Brushing Teeth with Toxic Sludge
The most popular fluoridation agent is fluorosilicic acid, a toxic by- product of phosphate fertilizer
production.
On May 10, 1999, US Rep. Ken Calvert, who serves on the House Subcommittee on Energy and
the Environment, asked the EPA to answer a simple question: "What chronic toxicity test data
are there on sodium fluorosilicate? On hydrofluorosilicic acid ?"
http : / /www.thirdworidtraveler.com/ Environment /Bathtub_Toxic_Dump.htmi 9/20/2007