Dr. Richard Sauerheber

(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of CA, San Diego)

                                                             Palomar College, 1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 92069

                                                                                   Email: richsauerheb@hotmail.com

Debra Smith, Everett Herald, and others concerned,

The article “Everett City Council Wearies of Anti-fluoride Activists” summarized recent events without introducing bias from the writer, and you are to be commended for that. Thank you also for stating last in the article that treating people with fluoride through public water supplies does not allow anyone to avoid exposure to the chemical additive. This of course violates the Hippocratic Oath that guarantees any person the right to refuse treatment. Removal of industrial fluoride added to water is problematic since the ion compares in size to the water molecule. Those people allergic to fluoride require bone char or other methods that are very expensive for whole house removal.

Most important, Federal water law (Safe Drinking Water Act; Water Pollution Control Act) makes it illegal to treat people with substances en masse through public water supplies. It is necessary and legal to treat water with chlorine to sterilize the water to avoid lethal infection, buy it is illegal to add into water any substance to treat people, including foods, supplements, minerals (nutrient or otherwise), or any chemical deemed by any health practitioner (expert or otherwise by consensus), other than to sterilize water. Fluoride that treats people thus does not compare with chlorine that sterilizes water.

It is admirable that the Everett City Council considers information from Federal agencies on health effects of ingested industrial fluoride from fluorosilicic acid preparations. The only Federal agency charged by Congress to regulate chemicals to be taken internally through ingestion in the U.S. is the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA ruled correctly that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient and when added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. In spite of these declarations that spanned the years 1963 to 1993, dentists in the Oral Health Division office within the CDC meanwhile issued statements promoting fluoride infusions into U.S. water supplies based on the idea that it is fluoride, rather than calcium, that promotes teeth health and that fluoride in the bloodstream might not cause ill health, both of whch we no know are false presumptions. The EPA does not authorize or request fluoride treatments but merely provides a service to water districts that attempts to decrease the incidence of severe abnormal teeth enamel fluorosis (2 ppm) and severe bone fluorosis (4 ppm) caused by fluoride.

Further, the recent thorough Federal study done by request of the EPA should be read by any city that proposes to continue fluoride treatment of its citizens. This Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water was completed by the National Academy of Sciences in 2006 and all authors unanimously concluded that the levels of fluoride in water allowed by the EPA currently are not protective of human health and must be lowered.  The old idea that the EPA and CDC authorize cities to fluoridate is incorrect. In fact, EPA relinquished all authority to regulate water fluoridation several decades ago, as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, largely because fluoride is an EPA contaminant being intentionally added as though it is a drug or supplement.

Ingested fluoride from water produces only 0.02 ppm fluoride in saliva, completely unable to affect teeth topically, and this disputes what Snohomish Health officials claim (NRC, 2006, p. 71). Moreover, industrial synthetic fluoride compounds at low infused levels are chronic poisons causing permanent continuing accumulation into bone (NRC, p. 94).  The brain effects of ingested fluoride, which crosses the blood brain barrier just as it does the gastric mucosa, were of particular concern to the NRC (p. 205-222). The statement that Snohomish Health officials believe there are no reliable studies proving adverse effects on the brain caused by fluoride ingestion, incredibly, does not mention any of the vast studies (over 30) that have been published demonstrating adverse anatomic and functional effects of ingested fluoride on brain tissue (reviewed in Connett, The Case Against Fluoride, 2010, pp. 148-156). Sadly, the Veterans Administration Hosptial, Los Angeles early this year published that systemic fluoride incoroporates into atherosclerotic plaque in coronary vessels of cardiovascular disease patients (Yuxin, January, 2012, Nuclear Medicine Communications), our Nation’s leading lethal disease group. Industrial synthetic fluoride compounds at low infused levels are chronic poisons.

Long term use of the concentrated corrosives fluorosilicic acid and caustic soda requires premature wear and replacement of plumbing. It is time for more cities to recognize that the above facts taken together indicate this procedure is illegal, expensive, harmful and ineffective and to halt the infusions immediately.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.