Sauerheber to Portland Mayor Adams

Print Friendly

Dr. Richard Sauerheber
Palomar College, 1140 Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA

To Sam Adams, Portland Mayor                                                                        

The idea that industrial fluoride, ingested from that infused into public water, is capable of preventing teeth caries after assimilation into the bloodstream and at the same time exerts no other effects at all throughout the entire human body are impossible. No matter how many observational studies are done comparing consumers of fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated water supplies, all by design are subject to massive numbers of variables difficult to control and are subject to misinterpretation. Many large studies find zero teeth caries reduction with fluoridated water (Ziegelbecker in: Connett, The Case Against Fluoride, 2011; Teotia, Fluoride 27:59, 1994 that counter studies reporting benefit. The more important findings are: 1) the U.S. CDC published that any benefit of fluoride on teeth is through a topical effect on teeth surfaces, there is no benefit from the bloodstream. 2) the National Research Council (2006) reported that the fluoride level in saliva from consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water is only 0.02 ppm, which is 75,000 times less concentrated than fluoride levels used topically in toothpaste. 3) The recent request by HHS to lower fluoride to 0.7 ppm to help minimize abnormal ugly tooth fluorosis, now endemic in U.S. teens, lowers salivary fluoride levels even further.

These three facts prompted an inquiry to dental officials in the CDC. The question posed was how does the CDC support the expenditure of 300 million dollars yearly in the U.S. to achieve a 0.02 fluoride level in saliva, when the recognized concentration in toothpaste perceived to be a decay preventive is 75,000 times higher? The CDC eventually responded that they have no answer and would send the inquiry to others to try to find an answer (personal correspondence, U.S. CDC, Aug, 2012). Please do not tell the public that ingesting fluoride actually lowers caries when in fact it cannot.

Authors of the National Research Council 2006 Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water concluded unanimously that existing allowed fluoride levels in U.S. public water supplies are not protecting human health and must be lowered, and requested vast additional studies be conducted to glean more detailed data on the effects of systemic fluoride on internal organs of the human (i.e. before an endorsement of continuing existing fluoridation policy could be made). In spite of these conclusions, fluoridation of U.S. water supplies continues. Several of the NRC authors prefer that artificial fluoride infusions into public waters be halted (personal communication) but did not require a ban in the Report because the Committee was not asked the question of whether fluoridation should be continued or not, but rather were charged to evaluate health effects now extant under existing water fluoridation policy. The statement is a distortion, that the ‘NRC found no credible evidence of negative health impacts from industrial fluoridation of water supplies.’  Quite the contrary, since bone weakening was proven to exist at only 3,000 mg/kg which is an average accumulation during lifelong consumption of 1 ppm fluoridated water (NRC, 2006) and that brain IQ is lowered during longterm exposure to fluoride at levels comonly found in consumers from 1 ppm treated cities. Although the human has a large brain capacity with 1 billion cell neurons (Scientific American, vol. 305, 2011), slow-developing damage is nevertheless cumulative because brain cell neurons do not regenerate.

The FDA correctly ruled that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient so its assimilation into the bloodstream and all organs of the body is an abnormality. Adverse effects of non-nutrient chemical substances cannot be blocked for an entire population even when exposure is dilute, and in the case of fluoride a concentration historically believed to be useful for altering the structure of teeth by ingestion is also sufficient to induce harm after lifelong consumption. There is no concentration of fluoride in water that is low enough to affect the structure of teeth without also incorporating into bone and other tissues.

As stated in a reference cited by Mayor Adams (J Public Health Dent. 46(4):188-98, 1986), the U.S. Congress has not passed legislation that either mandates or forbids the infusion of industrial fluoride compounds into U.S. drinking water supplies. In fact however, the Congress gave full authority to the U.S. FDA to regulate any substance proposed to be ingested in the U.S. to treat humans. The FDA has ruled from 1963-1993 that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug*&ie=UTF-8&ip= No fluoride compound has been approved by the FDA for ingestion, to be taken internally in the U.S. and since dosage is not the same as concentration in water, its total intake cannot be controlled when infused into entire public water systems to be consumed by all, even those lacking kidneys to eliminate it after it is assimilated. Luride sodium fluoride tablets are currently unapproved drugs, but are allowed to be used by prescription only, and only in cities that have fluoride water levels below 0.7 ppm (for adults) and below 0.3 ppm for use in children (Physician’s Desk Reference). Treating dental decay in humans by oral ingestion of fluoride in water supplies is uncontrolled dosing and violates the Hippocratic Oath that allows rights of refusal, where available water is necessary to consume to survive.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. Chemistry

P.S. the FDA ruled that water district fluoride overfeeds killed kidney dialysis patients and recommended ion exchange as the method to de-fluoridate city water supplies in hemodialysis units (page 3-1):

Leave a Reply

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

13 + 12 =