Dr Sauerheber Educates District Attorney on Fluoridation

Print Friendly

DR. SAUERHEBER EXPLAINS THE SCIENCE AND LAW OF FLUORIDATION
TO SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY

 

Dr. Richard Sauerheber

Palomar College

San Marcos, CA 92069

March 15, 2016

Email: richsauerheb@hotmail.com

Office of the District Attorney

330 W. Broadway

San Diego, CA 92101

 

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, and

Stephen Robinson, Chief Economic Crimes Division,

 Thank you for your response to my inquiry.  You are correct in stating that the EPA formerly regulated water additives, but presently does not, and instead requested the private organization the NSF to certify chemicals used as additives. Richard-Sauerheber-Photo-6-15-13

  Unfortunately, what you missed is that the Safe Drinking Water Act defines water additives as substances that clean, purify, or sanitize water. Fluoride does not clean or purify water and is not a recognized water additive, although it is infused into U.S. water supplies. The NSF 308page document lists fluoride as either a contaminant, or an oral ingested dental caries treatment or by nickname as an “additive.” Please understand that the sole purpose for adding fluoride is as a putative ingestible dental prophylactic, specifically to elevate the blood fluoride level to 0.1 ppm, as stated by CA Department of Public Health fluoridation advocate David Nelson under oath (in: Macy vs. Escondido, 2004, see relevant transcript of trial below). 

  Thus, the EPA not only avoids regulating water additives, but especially has no authority to regulate therapeutic substances. Neither the EPA nor the NSF have clinical staff able to monitor either the effectiveness of the treatment, the blood levels of fluoride in consumers, or the ability to ensure that patients in kidney wards and those with bone disease are not treated with fluoridated water. Neither agency issues warnings for infants not to use fluoridated water, or that fluoride supplements must be discontinued when water is fluoridated. Sadly, while the MWD Los Angeles and also San Diego Water assume litigation liability protection from the EPA, the EPA accepts no liability for the procedure. In fact, the Office of Water, U.S. EPA has written that fluoridation is the responsibility of the FDA. But the FDA argues that fluoride is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug in public water supplies that should be regulated by the EPA, since the intentional addition of any EPA regulated contaminant violates the SDWA.

   The SDWA prohibits any National requirement for adding any substance into water (other than additives that purify the water mentioned above). Fluoride is thus illegal to add into water according to the SDWA.  In fact, the Act was first written for the specific purpose of halting the spread of water “fluoridation” (Graham and Morin,http://www.whale.to/d/Graham.pdf  footnote 8, page 211).

    The comments parroted by the Surgeons General for the last many decades that you cited are not legally binding. In fact, the SG’s have been requesting this practice for the entire Nation, in violation of the SDWA which forbids this from being required. As you stated, SG’s parrot this as a great “public health achievement of the 20th Century.” But we have been in the 21st Century for 16 years now.  We are armed with vast information on the adverse effects of lifelong consumption of fluoride water, especially in those with kidney and bone disease, and other conditions.  

   The claims that the National Research Council [1] concluded that there is no credible evidence of harm when humans consume fluoridated water is in error. Most likely, the District Attorney has been provided false information. It is hoped that there are severe penalties for submitting false information to the District Attorney’s office on matters of such broad public importance. And we trust that you will halt further information collection from that false source.

  For example, the NRC published that fluoride levels in blood of consumers of 1 ppm fluoride water are approximately 0.1 ppm. This blood level causes accumulation of fluoride irreversibly into bone to thousands of ppm over lifetime consumption, which causes formation of bone of poor quality (NRC, 2006, p. 94). Moreover, the NRC published that thyroid stimulating hormone TSH is elevated by blood fluoride at this level, to help minimize fluoride-induced thyroid hormone lowering (p. 232). And parathyroid hormone along with calcitonin are elevated (pp. 250, 260) to help maintain normal blood calcium levels in the face of the fluoride poisoning of bone. In about 10 years of fluoridated water consumption, fluoride levels in bone reach 2,000 ppm, which exceeds the concentration in fluoride toothpaste (1,500 ppm). This is accompanied with bone discomfort (Table 5-7, p. 176) in a significant proportion of people. The high incidence of hip fractures in U.S. elderly (1/3 million annually) and the high incidence of bone replacement surgeries are obviously affected by fluoridation of bone, since the NRC established clearly that fluoride at any concentration in bone causes formation of bone of poor quality (p. 133).

  Further, the NRC is not the only source of information on harm from water “fluoridation.”  1 ppm levels in blood of kidney patients using 1 ppm fluoridated water in dialysis increased morbidity, which forced the FDA to order that fluoridated water cannot be used in kidney dialysis [2]. We also now have published studies indicating increased incidence of ADHD in U.S. children, and hypothyroidism in the U.K. where water is fluoridated (see FDA.gov petition FDA2007-P-0346 for detailed information).

  Although we expect you to correct this through legal channels for the forced “fluoridation of San Diego residents, we will also heed your advice to contact the CA Dept. of Public Health, Sacramento. With that agency being under the thumb of the policies requested by the Oral Health Division, U.S. CDC, we do not anticipate any action on their part to help San Diego residents on this matter, even though States can be no less restrictive than the Federal requirements of the SDWA [2], and fluoridation violates the FD&CA (see previous letter). We hoped that you would recognize that whole body fluoridation of innocent consumers, being ineffective, harmful, expensive, and illegal requires that the production of source materials must follow Good Manufacturing Practices as stipulated in the FD&CA for supplements or drugs, and that its dissemination for ingestion requires a prescription and warnings that fluoride tablets (allowed but not approved by the FDA by prescription) are not to be ingested when water is fluoridated. San Diego Water and the NSF are in violation of all these points by obtaining, certifying, and disseminating toxic hazardous waste fluosilicic acid as source materials for “fluoridation” in San Diego. You could be the hero, as San Diego citizens, who voted twice against this, wait.

Thank you for your time,

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

 

[1] National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006.

[2] Sauerheber, R., Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluorides Used in Water Fluoridation, Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490, 2013 see: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

Excerpt from court testimony of Dr. Nelson, DHS, in case of Macy vs. City of Escondido:

 

UNEDITED REALTIME / DRAFT TRANSCRIPT OF

DAVID F. NELSON, D.D.S., M.S.

TAKEN TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004

RE:

SHIRLEY MACY, ET AL. VS. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, ET AL

….

   Q: IF IT’S NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCREASING

FLUORIDE IN THE CHILD’S DIET, FOR WHAT PURPOSE, THEN,

WOULD THE ADDITION OF A FLUORIDATION CHEMICAL IN THE

WATER SUPPLY BE USED FOR?

A: TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE IN THE

CHILD’S BLOODSTREAM AND CERTAINLY THEN INTO THE SALIVA,

WHICH IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT FLUORIDE WORKS. IT HAS NO

RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD’S DIET.

Q: OKAY. INTRODUCING IT TO THE BLOODSTREAM, ARE

FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS ONLY RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN IN

NONFLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES?

A: YES.

Shameless Marketing

 (I too need to make a living.)

Listing Broker – as both broker and attorney for the seller, I do not charge anything extra for legal work pertaining to the transaction. My only compensation is my commission.

Buyer Broker – as both broker and attorney for the buyer, I do not charge anything extra for legal work pertaining to the transaction. My only compensation is my commission.

Helping brokers – with complex deals

Escrow Set Up – for when there is a hand-shake agreement but a lawyer’s hand is needed to get the deal written up and closed

Seller-Financing, Lease-Option Deals – for a quicker close, a higher sale price, and a secure 5% to 8% return for the seller, and a way for buyers with poor credit to buy property

Helping help For-Sale-By-Owner buyers and sellers

If you are a buyer with 10% to to pay down but no credit, set up a lease-option deal

Mortgage Modification – Foreclosure Defense – Sometimes modification is preferred over a short sale

James Robert Deal, Attorney Broker
Madison Partners Real Estate
425-771-1110, 888-999-2022
James at James Deal dot com

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

one × 1 =