Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Request to Delay Fluoridation Start UpCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 19 October 23, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Utilities Department Steve Myrter, Utilities Director, (949) 644 -3011 smvrter(a)city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Letter to Metropolitan Water District Requesting Delay in Fluoridation Start -Up at the Diemer Water Treatment Plant RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to send letter to Metropolitan Water District (MET) requesting delay of fluoridation start-up at the Diemer Water Treatment Plant currently scheduled to commence November 19, 2007. DISCUSSION: City of Newport Beach ( "City") is a retail agency that purchases Metropolitan Water District ( "MET ") drinking water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). At the October 9, 2007 City Council Study Session, a presentation was given regarding MET's intention to add fluoride to the drinking water that is supplied to Orange County retail water agencies and cities starting November 19, 2007. This presentation was given to inform our residents that the drinking water they will be receiving will have an increased level of fluoride and in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 22; Section 64433 the City is required to inform our customers in writing of this change to our imported water supply. At the Study Session a large group of citizens voiced concerns regarding potential health risks associated with increased fluoride levels in drinking water. In response to these concerns City Council has requested staff to pen a letter to MET requesting a 60 -day delay in the fluoridation start-up at the Diemer Water Treatment Plant which is currently scheduled to commence on November 19, 2007. This temporary delay will allow the City to fully consider this matter and give the City an opportunity to address its citizens concerns. Submitted by: October 24, 2007 Jeffrey Kightiinger General Manager Metropolitan Water District P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 -0153 RE: Request by the City of Newport Beach to De /ay Adding Fluoride to the Drinking Water Supplied to the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Kightlinger: As you are aware, the City of Newport Beach ("City') is a retail agency that purchases Metropolitan Water District ("METD drinking water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). At the October 9, 2007, City Council Study Session a presentation was given regarding MET's intention to add fluoride to the drinking water that is supplied to Orange County retail water agencies and cities starting November 19, 2007. This presentation was given to inform our residents that the drinking water they will be receiving will have an increased level of fluoride and in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 22; Section 64433 the City is required to inform our customers in writing of this change to our imported water. At the Study Session a large group of citizens voiced concerns regarding potential health risks associated with increased fluoride levels in drinking water. The City Council has directed Utilities Director Steve Myrter to review available data and studies to determine whether the additional levels of fluoride added to the water poses a health risk to our citizens. It will take time for Mr. Myrter to complete his review and for the City Council to consider whether the addition of fluoride to the water supplied by MET poses a health risk. Based thereon, the City Council is requesting that MET delay adding fluoride to water purchased by the City until January 19, 2008. The City Council believes that this temporary delay will allow the City to fully consider this matter and give the City an opportunity to address its citizen's concerns. The City, and MET (through MWDOC) have a long history of working together to supply our citizens with safe drinking water and the City Council looks forward to working with MET to address the citizen's concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 644- 3000 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Homer L. Bludau City Manager cc: City Council Members MWDOC Met Directors Kevin Hunt, MWDOC General Manager Steve Myrter, Utilities Director Robin Clauson, City Attorney V The Social Implications of Evolutionary Psychology: Linking Brain Biochemistry, Toxins, and Violent Crime Roger D. Masters (Chapter 2 in Richard W. Bloom and Nancy K. Dess, eds., Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policyntakers and Public Policy Advocates (N.Y.: Praeger /Greenwood, 2002), Introduction Although recent neuroscientific research has revolutionized our understanding of brain function, studies in this field usually focus on the individual central nervous system (CNS). This emphasis has been necessary given the immense complexity of cytoarchitecture, neurochemistry, and function. Now, however, it is time to link our growing knowledge of brain function and evolutionary psychology to public policy. Such a linkage, with a particular focus on the links between neurotoxins and violent crime, shows the growing importance of evolutionary psychology, which — unlike earlier psychological theories— provides a solid framework for understanding new findings in neuroscience, toxicology, and behavior. EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AND VIOLENCE Evolutionary psychology teaches that human behavior needs to be understood in the perspective of hominid evolution and behavioral biology. In addition to describing the neurological basis. Obviously, such uses of Ritalin can mask the problem and could actually increase the risks of violent behavior in later years. Dealing with such issues is unlikely to be successful unless neuroscientific research is linked with the social dimensions of environment, individual behavior, and public policy. To illusermwWe paWadmi 0such an approach, we here present evidence of the neurotoxic effects of two largely untested chemicals that are currently added to the drinking water consumed by 140 million Americans. These compounds— hydrofluosilicic acid (H,SiFj and sodium silicofluoride (Na2SiF6) —are more generally called "silicofluorides" (SiFs).j Despite their widespread use, SiFs have never been properly tested for safety; as an EPA official put it, his agency has no evidence on "the health and behavioral effects" of silicofluorides. Because the public policy decisions responsible for this situation are not relevant for present purposes (Rymer, 2000), this chapter focuses on a series of questions that are essential in attempts to link neuroscience and evolutionary psychology to violent behavior. First, what characteristics of the suspected chemicals make the inquiry plausible and indeed necessary? (Part I: "Why Silicofluorides May be Harmful to Humans "). Second, based on known effects of these chemicals, what mechanism could trigger neurotoxic harm to humans? (Part II: "Biochemical Effects of Silicofluoride: Mechanisms of Neurotoxicity "). These two steps culminate in the description of biochemical mechanisms that are predicted to have specific biological and behavioral consequences, including increased risks of violence. Finally, given the research hypothesis developed to this point, is there empirical evidence consistent with the predicted effects? (Part III: "Testing the Hypothesis: Enhanced Lead Uptake and I Behavioral Dysfunctions Due to SiF "). As this outline suggests, in addition to building on research linking evolutionary psychology to neuroscience, analysis of this sort will also require knowledge of such disparate fields as chemistry, toxicology, and public policy. WHY SILICOFLUORH)ES MAY BE HARMFUL TO HUMANS In the mid 1940s, the injection of sodium fluoride (NaF) in public water supplies was initiated in the United States as an experiment to ascertain whether rates of tooth decay would be reduced by fluoridated drinking water. In 1950, midway through a projected 10-12 year experiment, the U.S. Public Health Service -- allowed - the substitution of SiFs for NaR Although tests had been conducted on NaF but not on SiFs, the implications of this shift have been generally ignored by both supporters and critics of public "fluoridation" of water supplies. Whereas NaF hydrolizes on injection into water, completely dissociating fluoride ion from sodium, no empirical evidence of dissociation rates of SiFs at I ppm was available when they were -- judged acceptable -in 1950. At that time, the use of SiF was justified on the basis of a theoretical argument by P.J. McClure (of the Public Health Service) that the dissociation of SiFs would be "virtually complete.' Twenty -five years later, German laboratory studies by Westendorf revealed major differences between SiF and NaF. Under conditions comparable to those of a water treatment plant, SiFs are incompletely dissociated, and their residues have significant experimental effects on vital enzymes, including acetyl - cholinesterase (ACNE) and serum cholinesterases (or pseudocholinesterases), including butyryl- cholinesterase (BCh E) (Knappwost & Westendorf, 1974; Westendorf, 1975). /. Despite recent assertions of two EPA scientists (Urbansky & Schock, 2000), this difference between NaF and SiF is consistent with other experimental findings. SiF anion [SiF61'- remains intact at pH 7 at room temperature. It must be exposed to boiling water at pH 9 in order to effect total fluoride release so that no residues of partially dissociated SiF remain in solution. Moreover, because the dissociation process is reversible, reassociation of SiF from its components is possible (e.g., when SiF treated water is used in cooking). Hence the assumed identity of NaF and SiF, which persists in many discussions of public health and dentistry (American Public Health Association, 2001; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1000), and was reinforced in the CDC's recent publication of a study group's "Recommendations" on Fluoridationlo can no longer be sustained without disconfirming existing research on these compounds. When Westendorf set out to study SiF dissociation under more realistic conditions than had been tried previously, he used a refined technique. Measuring fluoride ion released from SiF at physiological conditions (pH 7.4, 37 "C) in Ringer's solution at 1 -5 ppm of total fluoride, Westendorf could only detect 67% of that fluoride with the fluoride ion specific electrode. He proposed that the remaining fluoride was still bound in a partially dissociated residue of SiF in the form of [SiF2(OH)41' -. Whether that particular species was the only SiF dissociation residue, Westendorfs finding was evidence for the survival of some partially undissociated SiF residue. Translated into water plant parameters, WestendorPs findings would mean that dilution of SiFs to the 1 to 2 ppm level used in water fluoridation at the pH and u I temperatures customarily obtaining in the water plant would induce each [SiFJ' ion to release only four fluorides to be replaced by hydroxyls. The concentration of resulting SiF dissociation residue [SiF2(OH)2] 2- would be in the order of 1 -5 ppm by weight, Incidentally, the same quantitative release of fluoride from SiF4 would correspond with Ieaving behind the nonionic species SiF2(OH)2 at about the same concentration. Thus, contrary to the total release of fluoride from SiF at water plant conditions (which has been assumed by supporters of fluoridation as a public policy) Westendorf found only two - thirds fluoride release by actual experiment. Hence, at a pH close to common water plant practice, Westendorf's experiments show that SiFs are incompletely dissociated when injected in a public water supply and that the resulting residual complexes can have significant biochemical effects. These characteristics of SiFs indicate that, in the absence of extensive testing of their safety, a harmful chemical may currently be distributed in the public water supplies of many communities. The scale of the potential problem is sufficient to justify concern, because over 90% of water fluoridation in the United States uses SiFs. With over 140 million Americans exposed to them (Centers for Disease Control, 1992), it is prudent to examine whether SiF residues or other harmful consequences of SiF injection in public water supplies (including the potential for reconstituting SiF in cooking or digestion) have neurotoxic effects that could modify behavior. BIOCHEMICAL EFFECTS OF SILICOFLUORIDES AND MECHANISMS OF NEUROTOXICI G1) r October 23, 2007 To Fax: 1- 949 - 646 -5204 Newport Beach Mayor and City Council Members Newport Beach, CA Re: Today's Study Session and City Council meeting From: Anita Shattuck 546 Westminster Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 646 -0889 bakeranita@cox.net . Please make copies of these documents for the mayor and each Council member for today's sessions. Total pages: 7 October 23, 2007 Anita Shattuck 546 Westminster Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 646 -0889 Newport Beach Mayor and City Council Members Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, First I want to say that i do have documentation for everything I have written in this letter, and will gladly send it or E -mail it to you upon request. A great many people now consider fluoridation one of the biggest frauds (mown to man! Fluoridation is certainly not `the will of the people.' When they are permitted to vote, more often than not they have voted `no.' The promoters find it far easier to sell their story to a few council members than to the voters. On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, Ph.D., a former EPA scientist said: "Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time." Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D., Microbiology, discoverer of the antibiotic streptomycin, has also stated that "fluoridation... is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has." In 1999 the EPA scientists (consisting of 1500 professional people) concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used "as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless... substance." They called for "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." Fluoridation is not even about children's teeth. It's about industry getting rid of their hazardous waste, hydrofluosilsic acid, at a profit, instead of having to pay a fortune to dispose of it in costly hazardous waste dumps. The aluminum, steel and fertilizer industries all produce this toxic fluoride waste product. For years these industries were forced to pay numerous compensation claims for damages to nearby residents, livestock and the environment caused by their highly hazardous plant emissions. Eventually laws came into effect that prohibited the disposal of these tonic wastes into the environment; they now can only be disposed of in costly hazardous waste dumps; unless,.of course, they sell it to us to dump into out water supply. These by- products were industry's menace until Oscar Ewing, an Alcoa Aluminum lawyer, became head of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1947. Alcoa was one of the biggest producers of hazardous fluoride waste at that time. Today, phosphate fertilizer industries produce the most. A theory was proposed by George Heard, a Texas dentist, that natural calcium fluoride in water improved tooth structure. Although the PHS knew at that time that there was little or no margin of safety between a possible therapeutic dose and a toxic dose, they proceeded to conduct experiments on thousands of people (without their consent) by fluoridating their water with this hazardous waste. Most people think that only pure `fluoride' is used to fluoridate the water. When promoters talk about adding fluoride, they continually say "it is natural." However, only benign calcium fluoride is natural (with a lethal dose of 5,000 mglkg). The law allows them to use natural calcium fluoride, but the powers that be choose to use hydrofluosilic acid (with a lethal dose of 150 mg/kg). People are totally shocked when they learn that what is being used is raw untreated hazardous waste that comes straight from the pollution scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industries. This hazardous waste is more toxic than lead, almost as poisonous as arsenic; and it is contaminated with some of both, as we] l.as several other heavy metals. People are outraged that toys from China contain some lead, and these toys are being recalled, yet we are being forced to add a substance containing lead to our precious water supply! Why? (`Follow the money,' isn't that what they say?) The most disturbing fact is that the Health Depattment's own statistics prove that fluoridation does not prevent decay; it merely delays it. It suppresses the thyroid, which makes the teeth erupt later than normal. This delay makes it easy to read statistics incorrectly. For instance, in the Newburg, New York, fluoridation experiment, children's teeth that had not yet erupted were counted as `no decay.' Therefore, at age 6 the fluoridated children were recorded as having 100% `less tooth decay.' But at older ages, as more teeth erupted, the decay reduction became less and less until by age 10 these same children had only 40' /a less decay. It appeared that this '10-year experiment,' was failing, so the Public Health Service abandoned the experiment. They then totaled the five reductions from the different age groups, divided that number by 5; and then recorded "an over -all reduction of at least 65 %." By ago 16 (after all the children's teeth bad erupted) the decay rates were equal. Therefore, the over -all reduction was zero, not 65 %. In Dec. 1993, a Canadian Dental Association panel concluded that ingested fluoride does not, in fact, prevent tooth decay. (Canadian Medical. Association dowwal, 1993:149.) An article in Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998, showed the reduction did not stop at 40 %; it continued downhill; and eventually Newburg children had more cavities - -not less. The Health Department's own statistics prove that the rate of decay was the same in all the test cities (fluoridated or unfluoridated) if you go by when the children's teeth erupted. . Bette Hileman, in Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989, states that the largest study of tooth decay in America (National Institute of Dental Research -1987) reported that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non - fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The study cost taxpayers $3,670,000, but the media ignored these results. The recent California fluoridation study (by the Dental health Foundation) showed that California has only about a quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15 -year old California children have less tooth decay than the national average. (San Diego Union Tribune 9/19197.) This proves fluoridation delays decay — it doesn't prevent it California is better off without itf Boston has been fluoridated since 1978 --- About 90 % of 107 Boston high school students were found to need dental treatment, according to a 1996 study. That report also estimated that the city's students had four times more untreated cavities than the national average. (Boston Globe, 11/27/99). The latest scientific findings (even in dental journals) show that fluoride's only measurable effects on dental decay are from topical application, as in toothpaste. The observed worldwide decline in tooth decay over the past four decades has occurred at the same rate in areas that are not fluoridated as in areas that are. (Nature, 7/10/86). CDC data shows that dental fluorosis now impacts one.third of the American children. The World Book Dictionary says "fluorosis is a diseased condition -- caused by too much fluorine in drinking water." Webster's Dictionary says it is "the fast sign of fluoride poisoning-" Now days besides being in toothpaste, there are excessively high fluoride contents found in foods manufactured in fluoridated areas and in many foods treated with fluoride containing pesticides. As a result dental fluorosis is ranging from about 15% to 65% in fluoridated areas and 5% to 40% in non - fluoridated areas. Shouldn't we be taking It out instead of putting it in? The National Academy of Sciences 2006 jteview of Fluoride in Drinking Water unanimously determined that the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal was not protective. Dr. Kathleen Thiessen wrote the majority of the chapter on endocrine dysfunction and recently spoke before the Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles. Dr. Thiessen traveled over 2500 miles to be allowed 5 minutes to address the results of 3 years work by the NRC's expert panel. On Oct. 9, 2007, Daniel Stockin, a public health professional with The Lillie Center, stated that kidney patients' lives and quality of life are at stake on and off dialysis machines. He asks, what could justify (the National Kidney Foundation) not telling kidney patients they are particularly susceptible to harm from fluoride intake? Is it feat of lawsuits? He also says that kidney and diabetes lawsuits am about to begin. On July 2, 1997, the EPA scientists reported that their "review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoridat luoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern were recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children." The FDA states in a letter that fluoride used for therapeutic effect would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient', that it has not been determined essential to human nutrition, and that it would be impossible to state a safe amount without knowledge of the amount of fluorides already being consumed by a person from other sources. (That is what fluoridation opponents have said for years.) In it letter dated June 3, 1993, Assemblyman, John V. Kelly states that the FDA admits there are no studies that prove that fluoride is either safe or ef%ctive; yet promoters continually claim it is both. 2 Who has a right to put a drug in the water supply, where there can be no control of dosage? Some people rarely drink water—diabetics and athletes often drink gallons. Recently the ADA quietly announced that baby formula should not be mixed with fluoridated water, most mothers are not even aware of this warning. For many people it is against their religion or their beliefs to use drugs. Isn't it unconstitutional to force this on these people? Until this fluoridation issue comes to a bait, those who know the truth, but can't afford bottled water, will live in constant fear of what that toxic waste is doing to them, and rightfully so. What about the new California law: Drinking. Water Statutes part 12, chapter 4, article 116270 (a)? The California State Legislature has found and declared that "Every citizen of California has the right to pure and safe drinking water." Now it is also the policy of the state to reduce to the lowest level feasible all concentrations of toxic chemicals that when present in drinking water may cause cancer, birth defects, and other chronic diseases. This positively makes fluoridation against the law. I just hope and pray that you people are brave enough to demand that this law be enforced. If you do, you can be sure that you will go down in history for calling a halt to this 60- year fraud! Under -oath testimony and Congressional investigation have revealed that no producer of hydrofluosilicic acid has perforated all of the requirements of ANSLNSF Standard 60 to merit certification that the manufacturers are required to provide and that the California law requires; yet the water companies buy this hazardous waste with no hesitation. They must not be allowed to get by with that! America is `The Land of the Free,' except when it comes to fluoridation. Other than a few Letters to the Editor, the media won't cover articles against this issue. If we don't send `proof,' they use that as their excuse. When we do send proof, they say they don't have time to read it, and they declare it is a non- issue. Newspapers claim that opponents are nothing but kooks and alarmists, and insist that no one should listen to them. The promoters may have many organizations endorsing them, and they constantly quote each other, but they have no scientific proof of what they say. Because of this, for years the promoters have refused to debate this issue —they know they can't win. Opponents, on the other hand, have the truth on their side; and `live' for debates. For the latest and most reliable information on fluoridation, you can go to Paul Connett's website: www.fluoridealert.ore. He's a professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York. On his website he has a list of over $00 professionals that just.recently signed on to ask Congress to stop fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They also cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation is ineffective and has serious health risks. If you can arrange a debate, Professor Connect would be thrilled to fly here from New York to participate! So would many other top professionals. As I said earlier, if you want documentation for any of the above statements, or are interested in obtaining more information conoeming any part of this issue, please let ma know. I will gladly get the information to you, or put you in touch some of the most knowledgeable opponents in this country. Thousands of us need your help! I'm sure you know that this is not a case of `whoever has the most proof wins'; just 2 or 3 good reasons not to fluoridate should be reason enough to stop `poisoning the well.' None of us can live without water! Who has a right to make it unsafe for anyone! While I was the president of The San Diego Pure Water Association the people voted `no' on fluoridation. Soon those same people, and thousands more including me, will have it forced on them, unless someone comes to our rescue. By the way, I am a very healthy 77- year -old woman who has never knowingly consumed fluoride of any kind; yet I have perfect teeth, other than the 3 fillings that I acquired as a teenager. I also raised 6 children who were decay -free while living at home. I know first hand that a good natural diet is the answer —not `fluoride.' Si�nc�e�re -l�y, L//NA� t J„ Anita Shattuck Oct. 23, 2007 Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. Palomar College I40 Mission Rd. San Marcos, CA, 92078 Newport Beach Mayor and City Council Members Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, I am a 30 year medical research scientist, Ph.D. chemistry, deeply familiar with blood clinical chemistry and .toxicology.I am writing to you because, under the direct request of a dentist, Mr. Don Nelson of the Dept of Health Services (DHS), Metropolitan Water District (MWD) plans to add artificial fluoride compounds into the blood of Southern Californians through drinking water. I sent a petition last month to the Food and Drug Administration who informed me that it is being reviewed in committee to consider a ban on all artificial fluoride compounds that are specifically designed to be ingested that have never been awarded FDA approval, in particular fluosilicic acid (FSA). I sent Mr. Kightlinger, President of MWD, copies of legal documents filed against the CDC for ethics violations for misrepresenting fluosilicic acid as `fluoride' and other litigation against a water district because kidney dialysis patients have now been killed by infusion of fluoridated water in day -long blood infusion dialysis protocols. Fluoride exists in nature only as nontoxic calcium fluoride, with a safe LD50 (the lethal dose killing 50% of tested animals) of 5,000 mgft. This compound can be found in some, but not all, water on earth. The unnatural compounds sodium fluoride and fluosilicic acid are used in public drinking water and unfortunately their LD50 is only 150 mglkg (Merck hidex, Its' edition, 1997). The Yukon River for example has no calcium in it. The 300 residents poisoned in Hooper Bay, Alaska, with one killed (New England Journal of Medicine 1994 330:95), is a testament to the difference between artificial fluoride, invented in the '40's from industry, vs. natural calcium fluoride that cannot acutely poison because calcium is the antidote to fluoride toxicity. My first mentor, Dr. Baird Hastings, the most famous calcium physiologist in the world at that time, knew full well that fluoride from artificial sources, as added to water, rather than calcium fluoride found in nature, is a calcium binding agent and. toxic. In fact fluosilicic is used mostly as an insecticide, a rodenticide and a pediculicide in veterinary medicine for external use only (Merck Manual). The Yukon water was calcium -free, so when the artificial fluoride without calcium was dumped into their water and the corroded valve stuck open, residents were severely poisoned. We have these data in my article delineating its lethal mechanism due to solubility considerations with blood calcium (Sauerheber, "Toxicity of Water Fluoridated Artificially" at www.lulu.com search fluoride for free download) and the recent published findings of the National Research Council (NRC) report on "Fluoride in Drinking Water." Yet the Water District and some at CDC and DHS side with dentists (who have no license to practice general internal medicine) and proclaim to citizens of this county that 'fluoridation is natural', as though fluosilicic is somehow `natural' also, and that `it is safe', as though the National Research Council 2006 report is somehow erroneous. Dr. Thiessen from Oak Ridge discussed false statements that some members of the CDC made regarding her NRC book. The CDC is wrong, because indeed 2,000 ppm fluoride deposits in bone after only 2 years drinking 0.8 ppm fluosilicic water. Natural calcium fluoride in water is only assimilated to a very small degree compared to the 95% of swallowed. FSA fluoride that is retained efficiently in bone, teeth and brain (Agency for Substances and Toxics Disease Registry, 2003). The idea is absurd that this is unrelated to the current epidemic of hip fractures in the elderly (113 million annually according to current issue ofNew England Journal of Medicine). Dentists, who know little of the chemistry of bone or blood clinical toxicology, are widely believed, while 18 million people will soon be forced to consume fluosilicic acid in their water without being told the whole truth. The NRC found that bone fractures with delayed healing occur in fluoride- loaded bone in a fluoride concentration - dependent manner. Dr. Bessin from Harvard University also published data indicating young boys is fluoridated cities have a 5 fold increase in osteosarcoma (WebMD, cancer) that confirms two other independent such studies (Takahashi, international Journal of Epidemiology, and a study cited in ASTDR, 2003). The CDC and ADA have finally included on their website the fact that infants should not be given fluoridated water in their formula. Most people have no idea that fluoridated water is not good for infants. The FDA also maintains its warning label on the back of toothpaste boxes because of the known toxicity of artificial fluoride. If water districts added natural calcium fluoride, I would go home; but they are not. They obtain the fluosilicic acid as a toxic hazardous waste byproduct of the fertilizer industry, directly scraped from industry scrubbers and repackaged as `fluoride' for water districts. This practice is widespread; but wide use does not prove either efficacy or safety. In fact, the four largest studies we have indicate fluoridated cities have a higher rate of tooth decay in the long tun. The Health Department's owns statistics prove that fluoridation does not prevent decay; it merely suppresses the thyroid. This makes the teeth erupt later than normal, which delays all decay. The initial Kingston /Newburgh, New York (twin -city study); was statistically misrepresented. It reflected a decrease in tooth decay only when the children were compared by age, when actually the decrease was related to the absence of erupted teeth. At 16 years of age, crumbly teeth with more decay were seen in fluoridated consumers compared to the control group. These artificial calcium binding compounds do not belong in human blood; they have poisoned and killed, and even in the absence of `accidental overfeeds' accumulate in bone for one's lifetime in an irreversible manner. Please request that Metropolitan not add fluosilicic acid to the water. If refused, ask that calcium fluoride be used in its place. If that is refused, I strongly suggest that you demand, in writing, that the supplier of the fluosilicic acid preparations submit written documentation proving that the preparation is in full compliance with Standard 60 for water additives with a list of all ingredients and their amounts, and also a letter certifying a guarantee of safety for all consumers at any reasonably expected water intake rate, and a letter certifying a guarantee of effectiveness in lowering tooth decay. If all these are rejected, then moneys charged for the fluoridation operation must be refunded. I take full responsibility for the statements in this letter and will provide upon request any references for them. Please consult my online free text "Toxicity of Water Fluoridated Artificially" at www.lulu.com search fluoride for more information. The following letter was sent to San Diego's North County Tithes newspaper after the Metropolitan Water District was forced to delay fluoridation for a month because it finally became known to them that fluosilicic acid would corrode the stainless steel containers that they had just installed. 2 Letter: ' Misled people evidently are in charge of our drinking water. Metropolitan Water constructed stainless steel tanks, foolishly assuming these could hold fluosilicic acid This toxic corrosive hazardous waste from fertilizer scrubbers is relabeled as fluoride', as though it's natural for water districts to drink The District rejected all of our statements. Instead, they heed dentists and the Dept. of Health Services, none of whom warned that 23% fluosilicic acid dissolves stainless steel. It dissolves glass, leather, metals, including plumbing valves, and concrete. It dissolved the metal valve in Escondido only days after 1 warned a city employee [that that might happen]. Rubber, impregnated with steel for tensile strength, is used in silicofluoridated cities to help withstand its corrosive action. A Canadian city learned the hard way when fluosilicic acid dissolved the concrete building they built to hold it. All wasted taxpayer money. The intent next month is to add this corrosive to our drinking water, which will then go into our blood, teeth and bones, after construction alterations are completed No one listens in any official capacity because they all tell me the same thing, "we know what we're doing ". How could they think this when they didn't even know about stainless steel? We've got to settle down and think Labeling those who want to silicofluoridate all drinking, cooking and bath water and blood, and also all carwashes, laundromats, agricultural and industrial and other waters, as noble health advocates is pretty ridiculous. But going even further beyond that, it is sheer folly to label people as 'opponents' who have longfought for fresh water to be as natural as is possible for homeowners. Stating the truth, that fluosilicic acid is a toxic waste corrosive, is now considered "opposition ". San Diego Clean Water has always fought for keeping toxic materials out of water, not putting them in, and yet in article after article in San Diego county newspapers, this group, rightly against fluosilicic acid addition into water because it's unnatural and not in any natural water on earth, has been charged with a range of things, from fearmongering, lying, being Communist plot conspiracy theorists, to being opponents, rather than a group who with certainty accurately speaks out the truth, that fluosilicic acid is 35 times more toxic than natural calcium fluoride. Fluosilicic acid, not calcium fluoride, easily corrodes stainless steel, most metals, concrete and at dilute doses through municipal drinking water weakens all peoples' bones. It is time to keep this material out of So CA waters. Sincerely, Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D., Chemistry Cc: Steve Myrter, Utilities Director, smyrter city.newnort-beach ca as 949- 644 -3011 caa Sz�r ajP• �;a UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY CINCINNATI, OH 45268 November 16, 2000 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Roger D. Masters Research Professor of Government Dartmouth College Department of Government 6108 Silsby Hall Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 -3547 Dear Professor Masters: We have received your letter dated September 27, 2000, requesting empirical scientific data we may have on the health effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride and manganese neurotoxicity. To answer your first question on whether we have in our possession empirical scientific data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, our answer is no. Health effects research is primarily conducted by our National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory ( NHEERL). We have contacted our colleagues at NHEERL and they report that with the exception of some acute toxicity data, they were unable to find any information on the effects of silicofluorides on health and behavior. In answer to your question on empirical information we may have on manganese neurotoxicity, NHEERL scientists forwarded to us several manuscripts with reference sections that contain information on the neurotoxicity of manganese. These are enclosed for your information. I apologize for the delay in responding to your request and hope you find the enclosed information useful. Sincerely, Robert C. Thurnau, Chief Treatment Technology Evaluation Branch Water Supply and Water Resources Division Enclosures Fluoride in Mesa's Water Page 1 of 1 Water Division Fluoridation City of Mesa PC Box 1466 Enhancements to the City's fluoridation process will be completed this summer. A new fluoride Mesa. AZ 85211 Injection system Is now operating at the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant to replace the remote sites 480 - 644 -2142 used previously. Benefits of the new system include enhanced security, reduced staff time for monitoring remote sites and more consistency in fluoride levels throughout the distribution system. E -mail us Fluoridation has been used as a dental health measure in cities across the U.S. since the late 1940s. After -hour More than half the nation's population now drinks water treated with fluoride. In September 1999, Emergencies Mesa joined with 40 of the nation's largest cities in adding fluoride to its public drinking water as 644 -2262 directed by a 1998 vote of the Mesa City Council and confirmed by a vote of the citizens. Fluoride occurs naturally in our drinking water at an average rate of 0.4 parts per million. Equipment Site Links installed by the City increases the rate to 0.7 parts per million, in accordance with the American Emergency Contacts Dental Association's recommended level for dental health in warm climates. Landscape Watering A proven cavity fighter, fluoride helps make the enamel surface of the teeth more resistant to acid Reminder and kills some of the bacteria that promote tooth decay. Fluoridation is encouraged by the Nationg Institutes of Health. Pay your bill Professional organizations Recycling Roaches Service Area Maps Strategic goals Trash Collection Turn utilities on /off Utility bill assistance Utilities Managers Utilities home Utilities Links �hpse `Copyright 2007 City of Mew Add to MyMesa I Contact Info I Feedback I En Espanol I Policies I user5urvey SFWATER.ORG: Article > About SFPUC > At Your Service Water Conservation Water 1 Report a Problem > Scum" & Supply Planning Water Quality Mnual Repots Cross Connection Control / BadcHOW Prevention Y Parasite Monitoring ? Fact Sheets Fluoridation Chloramine > Lead Information t Water System Improvement Program Wastewater Y Pawer " Contracts at Bids i Natural Resources ? Education &Tours ................................. ............................... Newsletter Sign -Up Subscribe to our newsletter - sent to you every two weeks. Enter Email Address Page 1 of 1 E-77,77 EMU Advanced Search SFPUC Home I Site Index I Contact: Email & Phone SFPUC Home » Water :: Water Quality 4i Fluorddation California Fluoridation Regulations PubWed: 09262002 1 Updated: 04 12912006 PubWed By: Waterqua0ty ..... ... .. ................... ... K Printable Version z Email to a Friend } Contact Water Quality Authored by Assembly Member Jackie Spear, Assembly Bill (AB) 733 was signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson in October 1995. The bill authorizes the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) to require large water systems to fluoridate their public water supply. It also directs CDHS to seek funding for fluoridation. The California Fluoridation Regulations adopted by the CDHS were added to the California Code of Regulations (CCR - Title 22, Section s 64433 and 64434) in April 1998. These regulations apply to large systems with at least 10,000 service connections. The regulations require that: " Large systems with existing fluoridation practices continue fluoridating under more stringent regulatory requirements (i.e., concentration, control, monitoring, reporting and notification requirements) " Large non - fluoridated systems start fluoridating when funding is made available. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) delivers water to more than 10,000 service connections and has been fluoridating its water supply since the early 1950s. To stay in compliance with the California Fluoridation Regulations, the SFPUC is therefore required to continue fluoridating the San Francisco distribution system and meet all the requirements of these regulations. The optimal fluoride levels and associated control ranges specified In the CCR Title 22 Section 64433.2 are based on the annual average of maximum dally air temperatures recorded during the previous five years. In the case of the SFPUC system, the annual average temperature falls in the 58.4 F to 63.8 F range. The optimal fluoride values prescribed for that temperature range are: Optimal Fluoride Level: 1.0 mg /L Control Range: 0.9 to 1.5 mg /L Back to Top 2: Visit sfgov.org the official site of the City and County of San Francisco Copyright ® 2007, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Privacy Policy I SFPUC Home I Site Index I Contact: Email & Phone http: / /sf water. org / detail. cf m /MC_ID113/MSC_ID1166/MTO_ID1358IC ID1923IListID/1 10/23/2007 Daum M. DAMgAER, PH.D. 21318 195 Ave SE ;Monroe, WA 98272 coc'"ermmk@KOLcam • 360- 794 -4909 February 2; 2002 Senate Energy and Environment Committee Olympia, Washington Re: SB6672 Dear Committee Members: My name is. David M..Dainkaer, senior co- author of the attached study, "Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982- 1986." 1 have worked many years as a research scientist for National Marine Fisheries Service, and when I retired in 1995, I was Deputy Director . of the largest research division within the NMFS. i have a Ph.D. in Zoology with a masters and undergraduate background in. Oceanography The attached study was _published in Fisheries Management in 1989, and, for that year. the North American Journal of wras awarded "Most Significant Paper" Within this extensive five-year field study, we determined that fluoride concentrations of about 0.5 mg /L adversely effect the migration of adult salmon and that 0.2mg /L may be near or below the threshold for fluoride sensitivity in chinook and coho salmon. This was demonstrated when these species were given the choice between a waterway with fluoride (0.5 mg/L) and a waterway with no fluoride. When given a choice, 72% of the chinook salmon and 66% of the coho chose the non - fluoride side. In addition, we found that fluoride not only -influences their choice of fishway but, if previously .exposed to fluoride, significantly delays their entry into either fishway. Because of previous commitments I cannot attend this hearing. I am, however, requesting that you review my study in your evaluation of this issue, and that you support SB 6672_ An assessment of the fluoride levels within the waters. here. in Washington is greatly needed and is long overdue. Respectfully, David M. Damkaer, Ph.D October 23, 2007 Dear Mayor Rosansky and City Council Members Many others and I very much appreciate the attention you have paid to the idea of adding hydrofluosilicic acid to our drinking water. We never saw this coming- we were blind- sided. I have attached a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet for Hydrofluosilicic Acid (pages 1 -5). Please see page 3 Section XI - Toxicological Information - there is NO DATA AVAILABLE. I am requesting the following - 1. Please ask MET or your immediate up-line supplier of water to furnish from their chemical supplier, or any other source, a chronic toxicological study on hydrofluosilicic acid; and 2. Obtain a statement from MOSAIC, MET's chemical supplier, and / or any other, stating that hydrofluosilicic acid is effective when swallowed in reducing the incidence of tooth decav and is safe for all ranges and ages of all the various consumers and population of Newport Beach- infants, children, elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. It is your duty to do your very best to provide the citizens of Newport Beach with the protection against inferior products or unaccountable manufacturers, is it not? Here is a sample statement that should be readily answered, unless you are intent on perpetuating some huge misrepresentation or omission of material facts, which I believe you are not. "This specific product, as it is constituted and inclusive of contaminants, is effective at reducing the incidence of tooth decay when ingested in dilution amounts consistent with fluoridation goals of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams of fluoride ion per liter, and is safe for the frill range of expected human consumption at these dilution ranges, without known or anticipated adverse health effects over a lifetime, including for infants. children, the elderly, and other populations afforded equal protection." Rhetoric that does not discuss the actual product will not suffice. Our City and you, the City Council, need proof, in the form of an actual dated and complete document, to show that MOSAIC and other suppliers (if necessary) has submitted complete information for product review, as is published as a requirement by NSF Standard 60, which is required by California law. If you, the City Council is unable to obtain these requirements, then you may determine that it is in its best interests to take the step of demanding of MET that, "To the extent that any manufacturer of a chemical used to fluoridate has not fulfilled all laws, including ANSI/NSF Standard 60 Section 3.2.1 as published, we demand that MET cease all additions and select a substance that does comply with all California Codes and regulations.C- ReSpectly, 0" �-,�klrj Material Safety Data Sheet I Revision Issued: 2128107 1 Supersedes: 12/312006 First Issued: 1120119 Product Name: Hydrofluosilicic Acid 1101 Skokie Blvd-, Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone (800) 241 - 69081(847) 849-4200 Common Name: Suite 500, 122 — 11# Avenue South Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7K7G3 Phone (800) 667-0403 from Canada (800) 667-3930 from USA Emergencies (800) 424-9300 (CHEMTREC) Web Site www.Potashcoro,com Health Emergencies, Contact Your Local Poison Center Chemical Name I CAS No. Acid I Formula: OSHA PEL I TLV — TWA PotashCorp MSDS No.: 52 ERG No.: 154 HFSA I Uses: Industrial by STEL IL *4 ;�_T nom I mnicnr_ CEF nnm 1 I Welgril * No exposure limits have been established for Hydrofluosilicic Acid, however, the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) and ACGIH threshold limit value (TLV) of 3 ppm (2.5 mg/m3) for fluoride for the eight hour time weighted average applies- ..... .... ....... ....... .... .­­_ ........ Section IV;'- Measures .... ...... ....... ...... ­­­ ... : ............ .... . . .. .. .. ....... .. ......................... ........ ............. .... Potential Acute Health Effects: Hydrofluosilicic acid is extremely corrosive to the skin, eyes or mucous membrane through direct contact inhalation or ftestion. Handle with extreme caution. Eyes and Skin: May cause irritation or bums in all parts of the body. Eye contact may cause severe damage, Ingestion; including ulceration of the comea and blindness if not adequately flushed. May cause irritation or bums in all parts of the body, including nose, throat and respiratory system. Inhalation: Symptoms of overexposure may include ulceration of the nose and throat, coughing, salivation, headache, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, shock and pulmonary edema (fluid buildup in the lungs causing great difficulty in breathing). May lead to coma or death. Ingestion: May cause tissue destruction of the digestive tract ulceration of mucous membranes, intense thirst, abdominal pains, vornitincl, shock, convulsions and death. Potential Chronic Health Erfffecs-LC' Long -term exposure may cause chronic irritation of the nose, throat and bronchial passages. fluoride poisoning may result in bone changes (fluorosis) r calcium metabolism disorders. W bone CARCINOGENICITY LISTS IARC Monograph: N, T�N;-. N � OSHA: No ..... .... ....... ....... .... .­­_ ........ Section IV;'- Measures .... ...... ....... ...... ­­­ ... : ............ .... . . .. .. .. ....... .. ......................... ........ Eyes: Immediately flush eyes (holding eyelids apart) with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes Get medical attention. Skin: Immediately flush skin with plenty of water while removing contaminated clothing. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. Do not induce vomiting. Drink large amounts of water (or milk if available) to dilute the acid. Prevention of absorption of the Ingestion; fluoride ion following ingestion can be obtained by giving milk, chewable calcium carbonate tablets or milk of magnesia to conscious victims. Get medical attention immediately. Inhalation: Remove to fresh air. If breathing has stopped, give artificial respiration. If breathing with clifficully, give oxygen. Observe for possible delayed reaction. Product Name: Hydrofluosilicic Acid Page 1 of 5 Flash Point Non - flammable AutoignitionTemperature: Not Applicable Lower Explosive Limit Not Applicable Upper Explosive Limit Not Applicable Unusual Fire and Explosion Hydrofluosilicic Acid is not flammable however the following hazards can occur during a fire: reacts with Hazards: many metals to produce flammable and explosive hydrogen gas; decomposition occurs above 227"F to produce toxic, iffitating and corrosive fumes including SiF4 and HF. Extinguishing Media: Chemical type foam, COZ (Carbon Dioxide), dry chemical, water fog. Special Firefighting Keep personnel removed from and upwind of fire. Wear full fire - fighting tumout gear (full Bunker gear) Procedures and Equipment and respiratory protection (SCBA). Cool containers containing hydrofluosilicic acid with water spray to prevent rupture. SIt�EtV1:.. ]�GCIt1(rfl�l :N$iUl'BS Neutralize acid spill with alkali such as soda ash, sodium bicarbonate, limestone or lime. Absorb material with an inert material such as sand, vermiculite, diatomaceous earth or other absorbent material and place in chemical waste Small Spill: container to be disposed at an appropriate waste disposal facility according to current applicable laws and regulations and product characteristics at time of disposal. Adequate ventilation is required for soda ash due to the release of carbon dioxide gas. No smoking in spill area. Contain spill with dikes and transfer the material to appropriate containers for reclamation or disposal. Absorb remaining spill with an inert material such as sand, vemticutite or other absorbent material and place in chemical Large Spill: ' to be disposed at an appropriate waste disposal facility according to current applicable laws and regulations and product characteristics at time of disposal. Neutralize residue with alkali such as soda ash, sodium bicarbonate, limestone or lime. Adequate ventilation is required for soda ash due to the release of carbon dioxide as. No smoking ins ill area. If spill could potentially enter any waterway, including intermittent dry creeks, contact the local authorities. If in the Release Notes: U.S., contact the US COAST GUARD NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER toll free number 800. 424 -8802. In case of accident or road spill notify: CHEMTREC IN USA at 500- 4249300; CANUTEC in Canada at613- 986 -8866 CHEMTREC in other countries at International code +1- 703 -527 -3887. See Section Xlll for disposal information and Section XV for regulatory requirements. Large and small spills may Comments: have a broad definition depending on the user's handling system. Therefore, the spill category must be defined at the point of release by technically qualified personnel. Ventilation: I Use with adequate ventilation. Handling: U1, appropriate personal protective equipment as specified in Section Vlll. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Avoid Store in unopened container in cool, well ventilated area, away from potential sources of heat and fire. Keep away from Storage: combustible materials, strong bases and metals. Large storage tanks should be bermed and electrically grounded. Avoid Engineering Controls: Good ventilation should be sufficientto control airborne levels. Personal Protection: Eye Protection: Wear chemical splash goggles and face shield (ANSI Z87.1 or approved equivalent) when eye and face contact is possible due to splashing or spraying of material. Protective Clothing' Where contact is likely, wear chemical - resistant gloves, a chemical suit, rubber boots and chemical safety goggles Ius a face shield. Respiratory Protection: Wear NIOSH approved respiratory protective equipment when vapor or mists may exceed applicable concentration limits. Other Protective Clothing or Equipment Facilities storing or utilizing this material should be equipped with an eyewash facility and a safety shower. Product Name: Hydrofluosilicic Acid Page 2 of 5 Appearance /Color/Odor: Clear, colorless liquid with sour penetrating odor Boiling Point Decomposes at 227OF Melting PointlRange: -1 to -4 °F Boiling Point Range: Not Available Solubility In Water: Complete Vapor Pressure (mmHg): 24 mm Hg @ 77OF Specific Gravity: 1.2 Q 75 °F Molecular Welght 144 Vapor Density: Not Applicable %Volatiles: Not Applicable Bulk Density: 10 Ibs/gal Evaporation Rate: Not Applicable pH: 1.5 -2.0 in 10% solution Freezing Point: Not Applicable Viscosity: Not Applicable Density. Not Available Stability. This product is stable under normal conditions of storage, handling and use. Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur High temperatures above 1940F. Hydrofluosilicic acid attacks glass and stoneware. Since Conditions to Avoid: hydrofluosilicic add may react violently with water and generate heat, use caution if dilution is necessary. Always add acid to water, not water to add. Materials tD Avoid Strong alkalis, metals, glass, stoneware, strong concentrated adds such as sulfuric and perchloric add, (Incompatibles): chlorites, combustible solids and organic peroxides. Hydrofluosilicic acid may react violently with water. It may dissociate to form extremely toxic hydrofluoric acid (HF). Hazardous Decomposition Reacts with many metals to produce flammable and explosive hydrogen gas, decomposition occurs Products: I above 22rF to produce toxic, irritating and corrosive fumes of fluorides including .Si F4 and HF. Toxicity to Animals: Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: on Eyes, Skin, Respiratory System, Digestive Tract No data available. No data available. Product Name: Hydrofluosilicic Acid Page 3 of 5 5echot�,Xtt Ec>og,t%st#sn ....,.... , ;' Ecotoxicity EPA Ecological Toxicity rating: No data available. Acute Toxicity to Fish: No data available. Chronic Toxicity to Fish: No data available. Acute Toxicity to Aquatic Invertebrates: (Frog) Subcutaneous: LDLo = 140 mg/kg. Chronic Toxicity to Aquatic Invertebrates: No data available. Acute Toxicity to Aquatic Plants: No data available. Toxicity to Soil Dwelling O anisma No data available. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants: No data available. Environmental Fate• ' Stability In Water: Product is NSF certified to ANSI Standard 60 for the fluoridation of municipal water supplies. Stability in Soil: No data available. Transport and Distribution: No data available. Toxicity: No data available Degradation Products, ' Biodegradation: No data available. Photod radation: No data available. Dispose of waste at an appropriate waste disposal facility according to applicable laws and regulations. Product Disposal: Neutralize with lime or other base. Collect in appropriate containers. Dispose of at an appropriate waste disposal facility in accordance with current applicable laws and regulations and product characteristics at General Comments: I None USDOT TDG - Canada Proper Shipping Name: Hydrofluosilicic Acid Hydrofluosilicic Acid Hazard Class: 8 8 Identification Number. UN1778 UN1778 Packing Group (Technical Name): II II Labeling I Placarding: Corrosive Corrosive Authorized Packaging: Rail: DOT 111A 100 WS Rubber lined \I1•]/lT • .l x 4 4 • 41 r A 1) Packaging must be protected with non - metallic lining impervious to the lading or have a Notes: suitable corrosion allowance. 2) Aluminum Construction materials are not authorized for any part of a packaging which is normally in contact with the hazardous material. Product Name: Hydrofluosilicic Acid Page 4 of 5 Seetiott'JSV` Re�u.Fatory UNITEDSTATES: SARA Hazard Category. trt�arntation ; _ .., . „, . ; '_ This product has been reviewed according to the EPA Hazard Categories promulgated under Section 311 and 312 of the Superfund Amendment and reauthorization Act of 19W (SARA title III) and is considered, under applicable definitions, to meet the following categories: Fire: No Pressure oerreradng: No Reactivdty: No Acute: Yes Chronic: No 40 CFR Part 355 - Extremely Hazardous Substances: None 40 CFR Part 370 - Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Applicable All Intentional ingredients listed on the TSCA Inventory. SARA Title III Information: ' product contains the following substances subject to the reporting requirements of Title III (EPCRA) of the Superfund amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and 40 CFR Part 372: Chemical CAS NO. Percent by Weight CERCLA RQ (I Its) SARA (1986) Reporting 311 312 313 H drofluosilicic Acid 16961 -83-4 1 24 Yes I Yes No CERCLA/Superfund, 40 CFR Parts 117,302: If this product contains components subject to substances designated as CERCLA reportable Quantity (RQ) Substances, it will be designated in the above table with the RQ value in pounds. If there is a release of RQ Substance to the environment, notification to the National response Center, Washington D.C. (1- 800-424- 8802) is required. CANADA: WHMIS Hazard Symbol and Classification: This product is WHMIS controlled. Category E Ingredient Disclosure List: This product does contain ingredient(s) on this list. Environmental Protection: ' intentional ingredients are listed on the DSL (Domestic Substance List). EINECS#: (Hydrofluosiiicic Acid) 241 -034-8 California: Prop 65: This is not a chemical known to cause cancer, nor is it listed. `..SgG:(6tt iii) f�M @r)fYFO11tt81(OEt. NFPA Hazard Ratings: Health: 3 Fire: 0 Reactivity: 1 Special Hazards: 0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 - Moderate 3 = High 4 - Extreme COMMENTS: Section(s) changed V. IX,XV since last revision: Although the information contained is offered in good faith, SUCH INFORMATION IS EXPRESSLY GIVEN WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY (EXPRESS OR IMPLIED) OR ANY GUARANTEE OF ITS ACCURACY OR SUFFICIENCY and is taken at the users sole risk. User is solely responsible for determining the suitability of use in each particular situation. PCS Sales specifically DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR THE USE OF SUCH INFORMATION, including without limitation any recommendation which user may construe and attempt to apply which may infringe or violate valid patents, licenses, and /or copyright. Product Name: Hydrofluosilicic Acid Page 5 of 5