HEALTH OFFICIALS 'ON THE ROPES' OVER
'FLUORIDE' COVERUP
Recent successes by campaigners against
artificial water fluoridation on both sides of the Atlantic were boosted
today when correspondence, dated 4 April, between senior environmental
and public health officials came to light. During a bitterly fought
campaign to prevent fluoridation in Wellington, Florida, the Palm Beach
County dental director, Robert Dumbaugh, wrote to the Director of
Environmental Health, Frank Gargiulo, seeking help:
"We will have to come up with a very convincing
explanation that defuses the mass hysteria surrounding 'pollution
scrubbers' and toxic waste dumping. Any suggestions? They even have
Tom Reeves on the ropes now. I think we have to have somebody that
understands the industrial process . . . "
In March
this year, Jane Jones, campaign director of the National Pure Water
Association, wrote to Mr Thomas Reeves, the U.S. Chief Fluoridation
Engineer, asking him to confirm or deny that the fluoridating agent is
pollution scrubber liquor and to provide Safety Testing Data for the
product.
"Reeves replied without answering either question," said Ms
Jones. "The push to fluoridate is largely driven from America, so I
also wrote to Dr Michael Easley, the 'chief fluoridation guru' over
there, and to Dr Gennady Pakhomov, the Responsible Officer for the World
Health Organisation's Oral Health Programme. He acknowledged my email
but ducked the questions. I've written three times to each of these top
men, who are supposed to be 'experts'. Their silence is scandalous. We
know that the fluoridating agent is hazardous waste which has never been
tested as safe for human consumption."
Public health officials claim that water fluoridation to one part per
million is safe and effective and reduces tooth decay in children. About
5.5 million UK people live in fluoridated areas. Few are aware that the
product comes from the phosphate fertiliser industry.
Investigative writer, George Glasser, has a special interest in
pollution. He became involved when several workers at a phosphate plant
asked him to assist in their fight for compensation for industrial
injuries. Speaking from his Florida home, he said:
"The workers detailed all the processes of the plant,
including the pollution scrubbing operations. I'd done some research
on the liquor but never realised how bad it really is. After
publishing their stories, I spent the next two years researching
official regulations and the PSL itself, and turned up some very
frightening facts. 'Pollution Scrubber Liquor' is a cocktail of
hazardous pollutants which have been washed down and collected to
prevent them from being emitted to the air. This toxic mix contains
about 19% fluorine, but the rest of it contains arsenic, lead,
beryllium, cadmium, vanadium, silica and sometimes mercury and
radionuclides. Arsenic and beryllium are classified as Group 1 'known
human carcinogens.' There is no 'safe level' for arsenic - it's a
cumulative poison. Yet all the public health officials say it's as
safe as mothers' milk! Why would anyone advocate adding known human
carcinogens to the public drinking water for any reason at all? To
promote it for a claimed reduction in tooth decay is utterly
preposterous."
Earlier this year, the Dept. of
Health commissioned a review of water fluoridation from the NHS Centre
for Reviews and Dissemination at York University. The Government has
said if the York report declares water fluoridation to be safe and
effective, they intend to change the law to compel water companies
to fluoridate when requested by local authorities.
"This review has been strongly criticised by scientists around the
world," said Ms Jones. "The NPWA wrote to York in June,
expressing disappointment at the exclusion of all existing animal
studies, all biochemistry studies and the failure of the review to
address fluoride exposure from a wide range of sources. They didn't
even address the pollution product! Whatever the final report may
conclude, the gross deficiencies of the review are self- evident and
compromise the security of the NHSCRD's findings. If they call for
further research after excluding a mass of published evidence, there
will be the most unholy row. We will press for a full, independent
Public Inquiry , which is long overdue. Our campaign will continue
until all legislation permitting artificial fluoridation is repealed."
