Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> EPA's Headquarters Professionals'Union Opposes Fluoridation 10/11/11 11:45 PM <br /> FLUORIDENETWORK ACTION <br /> HOME FLUORIDE DANGERS TAKE ACTION NEWS ARCHIVE VIDEO ABOUT FAN FAQ DONATE TODAY( <br /> Enter email address <br /> Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation <br /> Like 106 0 O Snare 0 <br /> National Treasury Employees Union-Chapter 280 <br /> May 1, 1999 <br /> Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals`Union Opposes Fluoridation <br /> by Dr. J. William Hirzy <br /> Senior Vice President, NTEU Chapter 280 <br /> The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 <br /> Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union,took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies.Our <br /> union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at <br /> EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C. <br /> The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, <br /> most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial-reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed <br /> assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see 'Fluo!;de <br /> Teeth and the Atomic Bomb', by investigative reporters Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson. <br /> Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its ddnkirg water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a <br /> complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for <br /> children to have'funky' feet^. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse <br /> health effect.The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at <br /> 4 mg/liter.At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluor os+s, but since it had <br /> deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.We tried to settle <br /> this ethics issue quietly,within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure,and we took the fight <br /> public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public nterest group. The union has published on this initial <br /> involvement period in detail(1). <br /> Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the ncreasingly out- <br /> of-control exposures to fluoride,the lack of benefit to dentai rea!tm. from clesuci, of fluoride and the hazards to human health from <br /> such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people withrrpairer kidney function,as well as chronic toxic <br /> hazards of gene fr,. ratons, cancer, eprodr crave effects, .. x. , a c-q, and nenra, fluorosis. First, a review of recent <br /> neurotoxicity research results. <br /> In 1995, MuilerJx and co-workers(2)showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride <br /> concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride-as <br /> adult animals,as young animals, or through the placenta before birth.Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and <br /> remained so throughout their lives.Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998,Guan and <br /> co-workers(3)gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the <br /> effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain-those that form the membrane of <br /> brain cells-were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride. <br /> Another 1998 publication by Varner .ensen and others(4)reported on the brain-and kidney damaging effects in rats that were <br /> given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed"optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). <br /> Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially <br /> disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats-rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. <br /> This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of <br /> humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is"seen"by particular <br /> tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water,their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than <br /> humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are <br /> experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the'optimal' level of 1 ppm. <br /> In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China(5,6)that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get <br /> http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm Page 1 of 5 <br />