JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
November 13, 2012
REVIEW OF SPEECH BY DR. MARK GOLDBAUM M.D.
On October 9, 2012, Dr. Mark Goldbaum … made a speech to the Snohomish County Board of Health on the subject of fluoridation. The speech was similar to the speech he gave to the Everett City Council on June 6, 2012, and to the Board of Health Program and Policy Committee on August 23, 2012.
Dr. Goldbaum presented the same Powerpoint slides on all three occasions.
We present Dr. Goldbaum’s speech in full, with our comments indented.
To follow the links in this report go to www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Press-Releases/deal-re-goldbaum-11-13-12.
This is Dr. Goldbaum’s speech:
1. … (Dr. Goldbaum opened by saying he was making the same presentation to the whole Board that he had made previously to the Program and Policy Committee.)
2. “This is an Overview about Community Water Fluoridation.
3. [Referring to slide 2] “I am making three points here: “Fluoridation is effective. It safe. It is legal.”
Response: Is fluoridation effective at reducing tooth decay? We have been drinking fluorosilicic water in Snohomish County now for 21 years. If fluoridation is such a good solution to tooth decay, then why is there so much tooth decay. Dr. Goldbaum says that fluoridation reduces tooth decay from 18 to 40%. Other fluoridationists say the reduction is 18% to 25%. The CDC says the reduction is 18% or 8%-37% with a mean of 26.5%. If fluoridation is 18% effective, it is 82% ineffective.
However, there is convincing evidence that fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay: Eleven countries in mostly non-fluoridated continental Europe have lower carries rates than the US. There is less fluorosis in areas not fluoridated.
Dr. John J. Warren says in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry, “Given the overlap among caries/fluorosis groups in mean fluoride intake and extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, firmly recommending an “optimal” fluoride intake is problematic. Kathleen M. Theissen, one of the authors of the NRC 2006 Report would agree with this.
Response: Is fluoridation safe? No. First, fluorosilicic acid contains lead. Worse, it breaks down into orthosilicic acid, which leaches lead from pipes. Lead has been tested in Everett at 63 ppb at water taps. In 2004 Seattle papers reported lead at up to 1,600 ppb in drinking water in old Seattle schools, far above the 15 ppm EPA action level and the 0 ppm goal.
Dr. Goldbaum would have to admit that there is lead in the fluorosilicic acid in the tanker truck because the Certificate of Analysis says it is there. NSF says there can be lead in drinking water after dilution at .6 ppb and 1.1 ppb, but Dr. Goldbaum apparently would say that is not a problem because it is a relatively small amount of lead, and in fact there is no detectible lead in water after dilution. He would have admit that the lead is there after dilution, but he would say it does no harm because the concentration is below the arbitrarily chosen detection level. Dr. Goldbaum does not have the scientific credentials to state that lead at .6 ppb or 1.1 ppb or 63 ppb, or 1,600 ppb is safe?
On the subject of safety, let’s turn to arsenic. NSF reports that 43 percent of tanker truck loads of silicofluoride contain arsenic, and that those loads can contain levels, which after the scrubber liquor is diluted to the point where fluoride concentration goes from 26.0% down to 1.0 ppm, arsenic will be present at levels of up to .6 ppb and even 1.66 ppb.
Prolonged arsenic exposure causes skin and lung cancer and may cause other internal cancers as well. (page 2)
A small molecule [sic, actually arsenic is an atom] that can easily get into cells, arsenic can cause cell injury and death by multiple mechanisms. Interference with cellular respiration explains the potent toxicity of arsenic. In addition, arsine gas may interact directly with red cell membranes. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen, but the specific mechanisms by which it causes cancer are less well understood. (page 46)
A scientific consensus has not yet been reached on the many suggested modes of arsenic carcinogenesis that exist in the literature. These include modes that are predominately genotoxic (i.e., chromosomal abnormalities, oxidative stress, and gene amplification) vs. more nongenotoxic (i.e., altered growth factors, enhanced cell proliferation and promotion of carcinogenesis, and altered DNA repair). Likewise, the dose-response relationship at low arsenic concentrations for any of these suggested modes is not known [Kitchin 2001]. (page 48)
Arsenic can cause serious effects of the neurologic, respiratory, hematologic, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other systems. Arsenic is a carcinogen in multiple organ systems. Interindividual and population differences in arsenic methylation and nutritional status may be factors in susceptibility to arsenic toxicity. (page 68)
In 2004 California has set its final public health goal for arsenic, only 4 ppt. That is 4 parts per trillion. NSF says some loads of fluorosilicic acid contain .6 ppb, which would be 600 ppt. The 2004 document said:
“… there is no evidence from methylation patterns [elemental arsenic converting into organic arsenic] that would support a threshold below which there would be no cancer risks.” p. 128.
Dr. Goldbaum would have to admit that there is arsenic in the fluorosilicic acid in the tanker truck because the Certificate of Analysis says it is there, but he apparently would say it is not a problem because it is a relatively small amount of arsenic, and that there is no detectible arsenic in water after dilution. He would say it does no harm because the concentration is below the arbitrarily chose detection level. Dr. Goldbaum does not have the scientific credentials to state that arsenic at .6 ppb or more is safe.
Third, let’s talk about other deadly contaminants. NSF says that some tanker loads of scrubber liquor can contain cadmium, chromium, copper, radionuclides-β, and selenium.
4. [Dr. Goldbaum’s speech continues:] “The reason why we bother with all this is because dental caries, tooth decay are the single most common childhood disease. … It can lead to infection pain, loss of chewing, weight gain, nutrition issues, crooked teeth, missed school hours, can be a predictor of cavities later in life, can be quite costly. …
5. In Snohomish County over 50% of all third grade children still have cavities. Between 2 and 3 out of 10 adults older than age 65 have lost all of their permanent teeth. In 2011 a human services needs assessment identified oral health care as the greatest healthcare need in Snohomish County.
Response: The fact that Snohomish County residents have a lot of tooth decay does not lead logically to the conclusion that we should put dilute toxic waste in our drinking water. Fluorosilicic acid cannot cure tooth decay. Only dental treatment can cure it. Some argue that fluorosilicic acid can prevent tooth decay, but even its proponents admit that it only prevents between 18% and 40% of tooth decay. Obviously, other prevention measures are needed as well. Dr. Goldbaum’s fixation on fluorosilicic acid wastes money which could otherwise be spent on other prevention measures such as basic dental services. It distracts us from other things we should to do reduce tooth decay, including dental hygene education regarding brushing and flossing, dietary change, including eating more vegetables and quitting candy and soft drinks, and calcium and vitamin D supplementation.
6. “It is also a very inequitable condition. Tooth decay does not distribute equally across the population … If you at the disparities by race you can see that minority children are much more likely to have tooth decay. … This is based on a 2010 survey among third graders by income, low income familes have kids with substantially higher rates of cavities. If they are non-English speaking, a much higher rate. So it is not an equitable condition.
Response: Dr. Goldbaum is 180 degrees wrong on this point. It is fluoridation which is inequitable. Fluoridation is more harmful to blacks, hispanics, and the poor. They are more sensitive to fluorosilicic acid, lead, and arsenic, than the general population due to poor nutrition. Alveda King, Bernice King, and Andrew Young lead the Fluoride-Gate movement. They see fluoridation as a new civil rights issue because it hits minorities hardest.
7. “Here’s how fluoride benefits adults and children. When it is consumed while the teeth are growing, it works in two ways: it is taken up into the teeth, and as a result it becomes part of the tooth structure. It can also then be released from the teeth in small quantities, and that will have a direct effect. It can also be circulating later in life. It will be circulating in the bloodstream and become part of the saliva, bathing the teeth in a very low concentration of the fluoride. The fluoride itself will then work to create a much stronger barrier protecting the teeth from cavities.
Response: Fluoride does kill bacteria. So too does a sledge hammer. Chemists use sodium fluoride to clean their test tubes and make sure all the bacteria are dead. Fluoride is a powerful enzyme interruptor, and that is how it kills bacteria. How would Dr. Goldbaum be confident that fluoride ion, lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in the fluorosilicic acid will only interrupt the enzymes of bacteria and not our own enzymes? He lacks the scientific credentials to assure the Board that fluoridation is safe in this regard.
Response: A person who drinks water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm has a blood fluoride level of 0.2 ppm and a saliva fluoride level of only 0.02 ppm. See 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride, p. 58-63. Toothpaste contains fluoride at 1,500 ppm, a concentration of fluoride 75,000 times greater than the level in saliva. If toothpaste at 1,500 ppm is effective at killing bacteria, why would Dr. Goldbaum presume that fluoride in saliva at 1/75,000 that level would kill bacteria? What scientific credentials does Dr. Goldbaum have to comment on this issue?
Response: Regarding the notion that fluoride ion can attach to enamel and casually convert hydroxyapatite into fluorapetite is a fantasy. This only occurs when a child drinks fluoridated water while his teeth are growing. The fluoride ion in toothpaste and saliva form a weak, calcium-fluoride ionic bond with the calcium on the surface of our teeth. The bond holds while pH is neutral, but when we drink orange juice and pH becomes more acidic, the fluoride ion releases from the teeth, and we swallow it. We swallow all the toothpaste that remains on our teeth.
8. “Adjustment and monitoring of fluoride in drinking water assures that it stays at the desired level. Fluoride exists naturally in our water supplies across the country. It is only permitted by federal law to be up to 4 ppm in non-adjusted systems. It is maintained at .8 ppm here in Snohomish County. EPA has proposed lowering that to .7 ppm, but that will require a change in state law, which I expect will be forthcoming.
Response: The SDWA sets a 4 ppm maximum contaminant level, MCL, for fluoride. Most people think this means that the SDWA authorizes any state or municipality to add any amount of fluoride of any kind it wants to add up to 4.0 ppm, and thus that adding 1.0 ppm or .8 ppm or .7 ppm SiF or NaF added level is more than safe.
It comes as a big surprise to most people to learn that this 4 ppm limit is not an authorization to add fluoride of any kind up to 4 ppm, but a regulation requiring removal of any fluoride present in drinking water in excess of 4 ppm.
Further, the type of fluoride required to be removed is almost always naturally occurring CaF2, fluorite or fluorspar, the only type of fluoride which occurs in nature in any significant quantity. In rare cases there are artificial fluorides which are found in source water, such as on the Colorado River, where cities are allowed to dump sewage into the river, to be used by cities downstream as drinking water, however, levels of fluorosilicic acid are typically around .2 ppm downstream from such dumping.
The 2006 NRC Report at page xiii clarifies this, saying:
In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 4 mg/L and a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 2 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water. These exposure values are not recommendations for the artificial fluoridation of drinking water, but are guidelines for areas in the United States that are contaminated or have high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride.
The 2006 NRC Report at page 13 says the same thing and adds more detail:
In 1986, EPA established an MCLG [maximum contaminant level goal] and MCL [maximum contaminant level] for fluoride at a concentration of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and an SMCL [special contaminant level] of 2 mg/L. These guidelines are restrictions on the total amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water. … EPA’s drinking-water guidelines are not recommendations about adding fluoride to drinking water to protect the public from dental caries. … Instead, EPA’s guidelines are maximum allowable concentrations in drinking water intended to prevent toxic or other adverse effects that could result from exposure to fluoride.
9. “Fluoride in the public water supply is effective. Fluoridated communities have 18 to 40% less tooth decay, depending on other fluoride sources. It remains the single most effective intervention. It saves money. Every dollar spent on water fluoridation avoids an average of $38 to $42 in dental care. It results in fewer fillings, smaller fillings, longer lasting teeth. It is equitable. It will serve everyone, regardless age, income, race, language and ethnicity, and its benefits last a lifetime.
Response: Dr. Goldbaum makes the standard fluoridationist argument that fluoridation “saves $38 for every dollar invested”, a reference to Griffin’s Economic Evaluation of Fluoridation, which comes to such conclusions only by starting with the false assumptions that fluoridation (1) causes no collateral damage to anyone who drinks fluoridated water and (2) that there is a savings of $18 per hour in wages not lost by missing work to visit a dentist. The calculation presumes that even children and the unemployed save $18 per hour by not missing work. In her Tale of Two Studies, Carol Clinch shows this to be a contrived estimate based on incorrect assumptions.
10. “I have to just comment. I myself and my entire family, including both of my kids, have always used fluoridated water. I am a biker, as many of you known. I fill my jug every day with water out of the tap that has fluoride. It is an effective and important strategy for my own family.
Response: If Dr. Goldbaum goes on long distance bike rides on hot summer days, he is consuming many liters of water. If he continues to guzzle fluorosilicic acid water, he may find stiffness and pain settling into his joints; he may be unhealthy in his old age; and he may die prematurely.
11. [Referring to chart 9] “This is just to give you an idea of some of the evidence for why fluoridation is effective. I am going to walk through this so you can appreciate. … If you would go to age 14 what you would see is that … Here is where you have no exposure to fluoride so you will have on average five teeth are affected. In contrast you have about 3.5 teeth, 4 teeth affected, so 20% reduction in the number of cavities.
Response: There are 128 tooth surfaces, so a reduction from 5.0 to 3.5 affected teeth is insignificant. Various researchers claim that all of this reduction can be explained by the fact that consumption of fluoride affects the thyroid, which in turn delays tooth eruption. When the teeth of fluoridated infants erupt up to two years later, those children will have fewer teeth at each point in time, and when there are fewer teeth which have had a shorter time to be exposed to sugar and bacteria, there will be fewer caries.
12. [Referring to chart 16] But if you were to go further out, you can see that the gap becomes even larger. Now that is on average, so it won’t tell you what happens with some of those kids who are more likely to get cavities than others. You can’t separate that out in the literature. What it is really telling me is that on average this is truly protecting children from cavities.
Response: This graph is unscientific. First, there are no data points which make up the curves in the graph. Nor is there any reference to the studies on which the curves are based and which might contain the data points. This is actually a theoretical graph, not one based on any real research. I challenge Dr. Golbaum to produce a version of this graph which contains data points and is based on real studies.
Response: The graph is unscientific because it does not include calcium. Fluorosis – and all the other harms caused by drinking fluorosilicic acid – is moderated when water is hard and contains a lot of calcium, because, of course, fluoride loves to bond with calcium, and once it does it poses less of a problem, not no problem at all, just less of a problem. Our snow melt water is very soft and very low in calcium.
Response: Those who drink excessive water such as infants, diabetics, athletes, and those who work long hours in the hot sun are moved to the right on the graph and therefore enter the high fluorosis zone.
Response: The chart admits that we are giving various degrees of fluorosis to people who drink various amounts of water.
Response: According to hearsay – which I will try to document – it was Trendley Dean, early promoter of fluoridation, who invented this theoretical graph. Late in life Dean realized his mistake and testified in court that he had been completely wrong about fluoride strengthening teeth because it was high calcium levels which were protecting the teeth despite the high levels of fluoride.
13. [Referring to chart 13] “Now, a concern that has been raised in the community is that there are studies suggesting that fluoridation may not be effective or may not be safe. In fact science relies on the preponderance of the evidence. No single study is sufficient to draw any kind of conclusion or set public policy. We rely on a preponderance of evidence. I will just draw your attention on the part … I have some of the evidence … These are summaries of some of the studies, not all that …. These are reviews of the many studies that have been conducted that have concluded that fluoridation is effective and safe.
14. [Referring to slide 10] Indeed in the most current of those, from a 2011 review, a US Guide to Community Preventive Services. This is a CDC reviews the group. They examined 21 systematic reviews so they looked through the literature at all of the reviews that have been done, basically summarizing all of that literature, and concluded that decay rates measured after water fluoridation only, that there was a 50% lower median cavities rate among children ages 4 to 17 years when compared to control groups where there was no fluoridation. Decay rates measured before and after water fluoridation that there was a median decrease of nearly 30% in children age 4 to 17, compared to other communities. That fluoridation decreases tooth decay across communities with varying decay rates and across children of varying socioeconomic status.
Response: The link in slide 10 was dead. The correct link is http://www.thecommunityguide.org/oral/fluoridation.html. The 21 studies combined had 128 subjects. The author admits: “The fluoride concentration in intervention water systems varied from 0.6 to 1.8 parts per million (ppm), versus 0.0 ppm to 0.8 ppm in comparison water systems”. Thus the subjects and the control groups overlapped. We are not told how high in the 0.0 ppm to 0.8 ppm range the controls were nor how low in the 0.6 to 1.8 ppm range the intervention group were. The methodologies if the different studies were not described. The author admitted that he was not dealing with negative effects. The article also dealt with sealants, cancer awareness and screening programs, and promoting the use of dental and craniofacial protectors in contact sports. This was not a scholarly journal article.
15. “Safety is the other important issue. Safety means that adverse effects will not be cause by some agent under defined conditions. I have got to remind you that fluorine, the element itself, is the 13th most abundant element in the universe. It is found in all food and water in various forms.
Response: Fluorine is the 13th most abundant element in the earth’s crust, not in the universe. The fact that fluorine is common is no proof that we can and should consume it. Barium is the 14th most abundant element. Should we consume it?
16.“All water is safe to drink if it meets the regulatory standards. Everett, a city that provides the water throughout Snohomish County to water supply systems is safe to drink when meeting regulatory standards, and it does. It is in full compliance with the standard.
Response: Neither the FDA, the CDC, nor the EPA sets standards for adding fluorosilicic acid to drinking water. In 1998 the EPA wrote a letter to 1998 letter to George C. Glasser, in which the EPA admitted that in fact, no federal agency regulates fluoridation materials. FDA passed its rightful jurisdiction to the EPA, which passed it on to NSF, a chemical company trade association, which has representatives of the same chemical companies it regulates sitting on its board . Read the scandalous story here: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.
17. “There is no known allergy or sensitivity to fluoride that has ever been documented.
Response: There are numerous scholarly journal articles on hypersensitivity to fluoridated water.
18. “The NRC in 2006 also conducted a review addressing safety in particular examined potential for adverse health effects with fluoride at two to four ppm, which again are two to four … four to eight … five to seven times as high as the level that is currently permitted in Everett’s water supply. There were no or there were unlikely adverse health effects of low levels of fluoride. And these are levels that are higher than what we have in the Everett water supply. They look for evidence of severe fluorosis, that is fluoride effects directly on the teeth from too much fluoride, skeletal fluorosis, bone or hip fracture, reproductive or developmental outcome challenges, neurotoxicity, neurobehavioral effects, endocrine system, thyroid, parathyroid, pineal, glucose problems, gastrointestinal, kidney, liver, immune system, osteosarcoma – none of these was there any evidence of an adverse effect.
Response: Dr. Goldbaum is saying here that the 2006 National Research Council report on Fluoride in Drinking Water says that fluoride causes no adverse health effects. This is a misrepresentation of that the NRC said.
Regarding the endocrine system, which includes thyroid function, calcitonin activity, parathyroid, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, NRC 2006 at page 8 said:
The chief endocrine effects of fluoride exposures in experimental animals and in humans include decreased thyroid function, increased calcitonin activity, increased parathyroid hormone activity, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, and possible effects on timing of sexual maturity. Some of these effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less, especially for young children or for individuals with high water intake. Many of the effects could be considered subclinical effects, meaning that they are not adverse health effects. However, recent work on borderline hormonal imbalances and endocrine-disrupting chemicals indicated that adverse health effects, or increased risks for developing adverse effects, might be associated with seemingly mild imbalances or perturbations in hormone concentrations. Further research is needed to explore these possibilities.
Regarding enamel fluorosis and bone fractures NRC 2006 said on page 2:
After reviewing the collective evidence, including studies conducted since the early 1990s, the committee concluded unanimously that the present MCLG of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered. Exposure at the MCLG clearly puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis, In addition, the majority of the committee concluded that the MCLG [4 ppm] is not likely to be protective against bone fractures. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=2
Someone who works indoors at a desk job will drink a liter of fluids per day. A baby drinks the equivalent of four times as much. So the baby is already drinking the equivalent of 4 ppm fluoride. A roofer or cross country runner might drink four or six or eight times times as much. A diabetic might drink ten times as much and is getting the equivalent of 10 ppm fluoride. The dose is uncontrolled, and it is consumed for life. The body has difficulty eliminating more than 50 percent of fluoride consumed.
19. “These are some of the reviews, some of the hard copies I have here. I just have to tell you as a physician as a scientist, I find this highly credible.
Response: Dr. Goldbaum is not a scientist. He is a medical doctor. An M.D. degree is a professional degree. If the Board wants the opinion of a scientist, it should consult with someone with a Ph.D., such as Dr. Richard Sauerheber.
20. “There has been some criticism biased in some way There is no compelling reason why any of these organizations would be biased to any question about the rationale for dentists and dental societies to encourage fluoridation would be predicated on the notion that there would be something for those individuals to gain, and it can’t. If fluoridation is effective and reduces the need for dental services, it is hard to believe that any of these organizations gain from encouraging fluoridation. In any event, there have been a great many reviews by very reputable organizations.
Response: The reason for the evangelization of fluorosilicic acid is that this byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing would otherwise go unsold, and Cargill would have to pay to turn it into bricks and dispose of it. The phosphate fertilizer industry could not function if it could not sell its fluorosilicic acid for drinking water fluoridation. Chemical companies sit on the boards of NSF and write the rules that approve fluorosilicic acid to be safe and to have gone through some 20 different toxicological studies – when in fact NSF waives the studies. The chemical companies donate to medical and dental schools and get “their people” in influential positions. They also contribute to congressmen and buy influence in the agencies such as the FDA and EPA, which should ban fluoridation. Delta Dental sells dental insurance, but none of the money collected goes to dentists or is paid back to the patients. Delta Dental keeps the money and spends it paying the startup cost for fluoridation facilities. Read more at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.
21. “So what about fluorosis? This has been another concern. It occurs when individuals swallow fluoride. It only occurs while teeth are developing. Adults are not going to develop new fluorosis. It occurs in both in fluoridated and unfluoridated communities, and it describes a range of cosmetic changes, all the way from the most normal all the way up to the very severe. You will not see anything more than the mild in this county for people who are simply drinking the ordinary tap water. Now it is possible to have higher levels of fluorosis if people are also adding fluoride supplements or otherwise getting overdoses of fluoride, but that is not a concern quite frankly in this community.
22. [Referring to slide 16] “This is the evidence that fluorosis is not a serious concern. These are the decay rates based on the levels of fluoride in the water. You will notice one, two, and three parts per million. The blue is the current statutory level in Washington state. The EPA has recommended a decrease. What you can see is the levels of decay decline dramatically until you reach this point. The levels of fluorosis are barely creeping up. Of course fluorosis increases dramatically even as the protection is leveling off at higher levels. My point is that at the levels currently recommended and approved by the federal government and here in Washington state, fluorosis is not a significant concern.
23. [Referring to slide 17] “Note also that the fluoride in the water supply is at a very low level compared to the concentrations of fluoride to which one can be exposed from other sources. You can see that toothpaste in the middle has 1,000 to 1,500 times the concentration of fluoride. You don’t want to swallow the stuff! Fluoride rinses, very high rates. Fluoride treatments, exceedingly high rates, but of course those are applied by dental professionals.
Response: The fact the .8 ppm is less than 1500 ppm does not prove that drinking fluorosilicic acid for a lifetime is safe. Fluoride is cumulative in bones and other calcium rich areas of the body.
24. “The cost of fluoridating in Snohomish County is approximately $.54 per person per year. For low income families fluoridation dramatically reduces the family and the state’s cost for dental treatment. This is one example of a study done in New York comparing two communities, a fluoridated community Schenectady. It was 72% fluoridated, and a relatively un-fluoridated community. And these were the Medicaid claims, and you can see the difference between the two communities.
Response: There was no reference given to the Schenectady study. Even if fluoride does cause some reduction in tooth decay, there are better ways to prevent tooth decay than to add a toxic substance to everyone’s water.
25. “A number of professional societies have endorsed fluoridation of public water supply systems. None of these organizations has anything to gain. Health professionals – the vast majority of the 6.3 health professionals and scientific organizations in the United States support fluoridation. scientific organizations. The Gallup Poll said and 74% of the US public said water should be fluoridated, and 74% of the population is currently drinking fluoridated water.
Response: Endorsements prove nothing. Many groups endorse fluoridation or at least refrain from condemning it because they receive funding from CDC and other fluoridationist groups.
The Oral Health Division, one small branch within the CDC, run by fluoridationist dentists, encourages fluoridation by doling out money to promote the vice. Likewise, the non-scientists at EPA endorse fluoridation. The most significant non-endorsement is that of the EPA scientists’ union, which opposes fluoridation. Neither CDC nor EPA has authority to approve, promote, or finance fluoridation. The Safe Drinking Water Act says “No … regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”.
26. “Here in Snohomish County this has been tested by the electorate on three occasions. The Everett City Council had approved fluoridation in 1990. A referendum by 51% approved fluoridation. In 1991 a second referendum by 65% approval, and in 1992 fluoridation was introduced.
Response: The City Council and the voters were uninformed. They were duped, just like Dr. Goldbaum is duped today. Dr. Goldbaume in turn is trying to dupe the Health District Board. Even if the majority votes for fluoridation, the majority does not have the right to force a drug and a harmful toxin on the minority. People have a right not to be battered and the right to give or withhold informed consent. This is a constitutionall issue, not a majoritarian issue.
27. “Fluoridation is entirely legal. Adjustment of fluoride has been in multiple communities for more than 40 years. More than 70% of the US population is already served. The EPA has the authority and sets the safety standards. The HHS recommends minimum levels but does not set the standards. The state actually regulates local implementation. The state actually regulates local implementation.
Response: Fluoridation is not legal. The fact that water districts have been fluoridating since 1945 and that some 70% of the US population drinks fluoridated water is not proof that it is legal. Washington law allows fluoridation only with materials which “comply” with NSF Rule 60. That rule requires that twenty different toxicological studies be done on fluoridation materials. Water districts rely on this assurance. However, NSF officials have admitted under oath that no studies are not being done. (See Hazen deposition, pages 22, 67). Therefore, the fluoridation materials do not “comply” with NSF and therefore are not legal for use in Washington.
28. “Washington state courts have held that cities have the authority to fluoridate drinking water to prevent disease. I cite two cases there.
Response: In the Mountlake Terrace, decided by the Washington Supreme Court in 1954, the citizens never alleged that fluoridation was harming anyone, and they lost 5-4. In the Port Angeles case, decided in 2009, the Court ruled 5-4 that Port Angles citizens had no right to petition to put fluoridation on the ballot, holding that fluoridation was a mere administrative matter, like selecting the day of the week for sweeping the streets, and that citizens had no right to vote on such administrative matters. The case was lost probably because the citizens again never alleged that fluoridation was harming anyone.
29. “So, in short, as a health care professional, I am absolutely convinced that fluoridation is effective, it is safe, and it is legal. I would ask that the Board support my recommendation to endorse fluoridation of the water supply for the residents of Snohomish County.
30. “I am open for questions. …
31. (Questions from Board Members: “By use of the term “non-adjusted systems” – does that mean ….? Water ?”
32. A. “That means … natural levels of fluoride – four ppm, in which case they have to be adjusted downward.
33. Q. “And fluorosis is effectively cosmetic and not structural? A. In extreme cases it could be.”
Response: See my answer to question 8 above. The EPA is bound by the Safe Drinking Water Act, which forbids adding chemicals to drinking water except to kill bacteria, as in the case of chlorine, and not to treat medical conditions. The 4 ppm EPA level is the maximum level of usually calcium fluoride which will be tolerated in drinking water. It is not an authorization to add synthetic fluorides in any amount.
34. Q. “I have a question. On of the studies talked about fluoridation and the fetus Do you know anything about those studies. A. There have been studies [unintelligible] There has never been any documentation that any fetuses have been harmed by low levels of fluoride in the public water system.”
Response: There is strong evidence that fetuses are being harmed as their mothers drink fluorosilicic water and eat food made with fluorosilicic water. Fluoride passes through the placental barrier into the fetus. It is even more vulnerable than an infant because its cells are dividing so rapidly.
“There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral neurological assessment score and neonatal behavioral score between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. There were also significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological visual and auditory orientation reaction between the two groups. It is concluded that fluoride is toxic to neurodevelopment and that excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy can cause adverse effects on neonatal neurobehavioral development”.
“The … accumulation of fluoride in the brain tissue can disrupt the synthesis of certain neurotransmitters and receptors in nerve cells, leading to neural dysplasia or other damage”.
“The numerical density of volume, the volume density, and the surface density of the mitochondria were significantly reduced. The results showed that chronic fluorosis in the course of intrauterine fetal life may produce certain harmful effects on the developing brain of the fetus”.
The EPA is developing a Database of Developmental Neurotoxicants. Fluoride is one of the neurotoxicants listed. The database looks at human and animal studies where the exposure to various toxins including fluoride has taken place during pregnancy or during the period before weaning, the EPA concluded that fluoride fell into the class of chemicals regarding which there was “substantial evidence of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity”.
I will now comment on the many issues which Dr. Goldbaum ignores, topics we have raised before. We will list a few of them here:
Dr. Goldbaum has ignored susceptible subpopulations, although the NRC 2006 Report says they should be considered. Dr. Goldbaum has ignored the Members of Safe Water who have thyroid disease and who have testified that they must go to great lengths to avoid drinking Everett’s fluoridated water or get sick.
Fluorosilicic acid is a drug, and Dr. Goldbaum has denied this. I pointed out several times to Dr. Goldbaum that fluorosilicic acid added to water to treat a physical condition meets the FDA and Washington definition of a drug.
Although fluorosilicic acid is an unapproved drug, and in reality a poison, its administration is medical treatment. Informed consent before treatment is a fundamental principle of law. Administering it without prior consent is a violation of ethics and freedom of choice
At a previous Board meeting I challenged Dr. Goldbaum to sign a prescription for fluorosilicic acid. A prescription is needed for a drug to be dispensed. So far Dr. Goldbaum has not signed that prescription. He fails to see the problem with administering a drug which is hard to excrete, for life, with no limit on the quantity taken, and with no regard to the age or health of those taking it.
To follow the links in this report go to www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Press-Releases/wrong-again.
James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA No. 8103