Wednesday, May 30, 2012


Myron J. Coplan

Although silicofluorides (SiFs), principally fluosilicic acid (FSA), have never been tested for health safety as water fluoridating agents, they are used to fluoridate 91% of the municipal water intended for human consumption in the United States.   Evidence published in peer-reviewed journals indicates that chronic ingestion of SiF-treated water is a cause of elevated blood lead in children. This evidence has been known by the EPA, CDC, and NIEHS since 1999, but they have disputed it with theoretical arguments and poor statistics.

Independent, new research has provided an explanation for the elevated blood lead. Unexpected amounts of lead are extracted from brass plumbing fixtures by water in which FSA is combined with chlorine or chloramine disinfectants. Ingesting such water or foods made with same will increase blood lead in children causing cognitive impairment and suppressed impulse control.

Moreover elevated blood lead has been unequivocally proven to damage tooth enamel integrity and increase susceptibility to caries. Dental fluorosis, considered “only cosmetic” by fluoridation proponents, has also been found to be more severe where silicon accompanies fluoride in naturally fluoridated areas. Elevated blood lead also impacts adults and particularly Black males, who are known to be more susceptible to hypertension and kidney problems from elevated blood lead.

Apart from blood lead health and behavioral issues with children and adults across all races, a heretofore unacknowledged 1975 German PhD thesis provides evidence that SiF-treated water is likely to disrupt enzyme functions with consequent additional adverse health and behavioral effects. FBI violent crime statistics also correlates with exposure to SiF-treated water, probably due to bio-mechanisms driven by lead intoxication and/or acetyl-cholinesterase inhibition.

In addition to any of the above, compelling evidence reported in a Harvard PhD thesis showed fluoridated water to be strongly associated with osteosarcoma. This thesis
has precipitated a controversy in which a Harvard professor, a dentist and fluoridation advocate, has allegedly tried to suppress disclosure of the findings of the thesis he supervised and approved in 2001.

                                         II. Demonstrable Supporting Facts

(1) Fluoride chemicals are only effective in preventing tooth decay when in contact with the outer surface of tooth enamel. Ingesting fluoride chemicals to prevent tooth decay is neither necessary nor without adverse side effects on health.

(2) The notion that any form of ingested “fluoride” chemical is like any other, as
regards health effects when ingested, is naive or disingenuous. Thus, to declare that “fluoride is fluoride is fluoride” bespeaks irresponsibility whether that catch phrase comes from one side of the fluoridation debate or the other.

(3) In 1945, sodium fluoride (NaF) was the first agent used to deliver one part per million of fluoride ion in drinking water with at least some primitive tests on animals for health safety. In 1947, FSA was substituted for NaF as a cheaper source of fluoride without any such testing. With savings that amounted to 4 cents per year per community resident, the US PHS endorsed the switch from NaF to SiF in 1950 because rat teeth took up an equal amount of fluoride from each and rats grew at the same rate. In passing, the Public Health Report author (FJ McClure) mentions that significantly more of any excess fluoride was eliminated in the urine of SiF exposed rats than in the urine of NaF exposed rats. Thus fluoride levels in the bloodstream also had to be higher in the rats ingesting SiF-treated water, with consequent more intense exposure of soft tissues to fluoride.

(4) A 1999 letter from EPA Asst. Administrator Charles Fox to Congressman Ken Calvert admits the EPA had no evidence of any animal tests of SiF-treated water even though almost all US fluoridated water is treated with FSA.

(5) Data for over 400,000 children, 250,000 in Massachusetts, 150,000 in New York State, and 6,000 in the NHANES III child sample, consistently showed a statistically significant association between elevated blood lead and living in a community with SiF treated municipal water (Masters et al 2000, and Masters and Coplan 1999).

Subsequent to these publications, in 2002 the National Toxicology program nominated these compounds for study on the grounds that SiF “toxicology” was not known.  As of August 2007, however, there are no reports of such a study – or even of the designation of a team to research the possibility of toxic effects of SiF.

(6) The University of North Carolina Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) has found that lead-bearing brass plumbing in the absence of any other source such as lead pipes is corroded by SiF treated water to such an extent that it should be considered as a serious source of ingested lead.

(7)  In 1945, 10-15 % of children drinking naturally fluoridated water exhibited dental fluorosis, mostly mild. In 1993 a National Research Council (NRC) report noted that up to 51% of children drinking SiF-treated water exhibited dental fluorosis with 14% moderate-to-severe and some severe. The idea that fluorosis is merely “cosmetic” was challenged in a
2006 NRC report citing fluorosis as a “toxic effect that is consistent with prevailing risk assessment definitions of adverse health effects.” It also noted that drinking water is a major source of the fluoride causing the fluorosis.

(8) It is now established that dental fluorosis is due to inhibition of the enzymes that remove proteins responsible for tooth enamel formation

(9) Enzyme inhibition by SiF was also the subject of a German PhD thesis which focused on inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE).  AChE plays a vital role in proper functioning of cholinergic neural systems responsible for both voluntary and involuntary muscular processes. For instance, AChE quenches acetylcholine (ACh) activity after it has transmitted excitatory signals across a synaptic gap to a muscle end-plate. If that quenching is totally suppressed, muscle excitation would be prolonged, and a spasm would occur that can be fatal (which is a short-hand description of how nerve gas works).

(10) An equally important example of enzyme inhibition concerns “serum cholinesterase” whose function includes scavenging blood-borne toxins that might otherwise interfere with the normal healthy interactions of ACh and AChE.

(11) Apart from direct adverse health problem from ingested SiFs, it should be noted that SiF treated water is a potential source of low level internal radiation from contaminating radio-nuclides; this is a possible cause of osteosarcoma, which has been observed more frequently where water is treated with SiF.

(12) The CDC has funded a former CDC employee to carry out a statistical study to refute the SiF/blood lead link. Ironically, rather than proving that there is none, even after employing unwarranted statistical methods, this study actually confirmed that there is a 70% greater risk of elevated blood lead for children receiving SiF treated water due to increased absorption of environmental lead to which they are exposed.

(13) A dentist and vigorous proponent of fluoridation recently completed a study titled “Association Between Race/Ethnicity and Early Childhood Caries in California Pre-School Children.” DirectorsReportCouncil092003.htm). It concluded:

     “... water fluoridation status of the children's area of residence did not have
      a significant effect on ECC and may be indicative of a lack of water intake.”

(14) The ineffectiveness of fluoridated water in the populations studied should not have been a surprise. Similar results were reported by the Public Health Service in 1992 but they weren’t blamed on not drinking enough fluoridated water: (Barnes GP, et al; “Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of Head Start children”; Public Health Rep. 1992 Mar-Apr;107(2):167-73).

(15) Finally, this synopsis would be incomplete without comment on research conducted by the Forsyth Dental Center in the late 1970s (Glass RL; Caries Res. 1981;15(5):445-50) which concluded that tooth decay had declined in two non-fluoridated Boston suburbs at the same rate as in fluoridated Boston. Similar results were mentioned in a 1980 Journal of Dental Research Abstract authored by other Forsyth staff members (PF DePaola, P Soparkar,  M Allukian, R DeVelis, and M Resker) titled “Changes in Caries Prevalence of Massachusetts Children Over Thirty Years.” A key phrase in that abstract reads as follows:

   “A comparison of the present preliminary findings to those of nearly 30 years
     ago suggest a decline in caries prevalence of 40-50%. The decline cannot be
     attributed to water fluoridation and seems too large to be explained trivially,
     e.g. because of differences in diagnostic standards.”     

Forsyth management convened the “First International Conference on the Declining Prevalence of Dental Caries” to be held at Forsyth June 25-26, 1982. The conference proceedings eventually comprised an entire Special Issue of the Journal of Dental Research published in November 1982. Over a dozen countries provided data confirming a decline in tooth decay without benefit of exposure to fluoridated drinking water. In summarizing these findings a major member of the Forsyth management made this remarkable statement:  
     “In summary, we have presented some data here today which make us
      reasonably certain that dental caries has declined in Massachusetts, and
      some additional data which make us at least suspect that this decline is part
      of a wider pattern of national and international scope. We have also commented
      upon some factors to consider in relation to declining caries rates.

      When dealing with these findings one is faced with a dilemma. On the one
      hand, it is obviously important to develop the earliest possible awareness of a
      significant downward shift in caries prevalence because of the profound
      implications of such a phenomenon and, indeed, we view this as the justification
      for this report. On the other hand, if we judge erroneously or prematurely that
      such a shift has occurred, or if we misjudge the magnitude of the shift, there
      is the danger of fostering the belief that dental caries is no longer a serious
      problem. And, even if we make no such mistake, there is still something to
      be worried about. Recall the European data, for example, which shows declines
      in caries which are occurring without fluoridation. This could easily become
      ammunition for the antifluoridationists despite the fact that the data do not           
      diminish the overwhelming importance of fluoridation by one iota.”                   
The contradiction between the last two sentences is easily explained and illustrates the gap between recent scientific findings and typical political statements on the issue.

[1] Georges Graeub, The Petkau Effect (New York: Four Walls Four Windows, 1994).

No comments:

Post a Comment