Thus, the fact that this NRC review did not recommend a safe level of fluoride lower than 1 ppm (which if heeded would have forced the end of water fluoridation) hangs on the slenderest of threads: namely, that there is a chance that these findings on thyroid function in the peer reviewed and published literature in Europe, Russia, and China may not apply to people in the US. However, the lack of research on these matters in the US should not leave us with any confidence in this situation. It should be a matter of grave concern that this research not been done here, even though the artificial fluoridation program has been going on now for 60 years and as early as the 1930’s researchers were writing about fluoride’s impact on the thyroid gland (DeEds 1940).

8) Huge data gaps. The NRC panel make many research recommendations (see FAN bulletin #439) which reveal huge data gaps in basic research on fluoride’s toxicity in the US. What they didn’t say, but we can, is that the US Public Health Service’s 56 year-old adherence to the water fluoridation program has hitherto limited meaningful research into fluoride’s health effects. Most of the research money has been siphoned off into dental research with little attention to other tissues. On the rare occasions other tissues are examined the clear intention is to find another benefit of fluoridation. For example, it is not a coincidence that some NIDR funded studies

Moreover, as the NRC panel’s research recommendations indicate, no significant efforts have been made in the US to track the levels of fluoride in urine, plasma or bones of the American people. Such basic baseline research is critical if one wishes to seriously explore whether there is a connection between fluoride exposure and hypothyroidism, neurological effects, arthritis or other serious end points afflicting millions of people. We have been flying blind on these matters. Hopefully, the NRC’s review will stimulate some serious research by independent scientists (not those chosen to support the interests of the fluoridation program) in the future. Sadly, it may be rather late for some.

9) Uncertainties. The NRC panel has strongly recommended that the US EPA conduct a health risk assessment in order to ascertain a new MCLG which is protective of the American people - and that includes vulnerable subsets not just the average person. Because the NRC report has shown that the foreign literature indicates very serious concerns and uncertainties, when the EPA does an updated health risk assessment on these endpoints, the uncertainties alone should force a margin of safety which will produce a new MCLG lower than 1 ppm.

 Postscript: However, so much of this is written as if “science” ruled the world. It does not. Both industrial and political interests have a way of marginalizing scientific findings when it suits their purposes. Once again we can expect politics to take over.  We can anticipate that the EPA will be reluctant to do the health risk assessment recommended by the NRC panel and drag out the process as long as it can. The EPA probably will not want to offend the US PHS, which has a huge interest in keeping its policy of water fluoridation on track, nor will the EPA pesticide divison want to disappoint its corporate client Dow Agrosciences in its efforts to use sulfuryl fluoride as a fumigant on food. This is why it remains critically important that we get more involvement and oversight in this matter from the US Congress and orgnizations than can put pressure on Congress. Now that we have some important science on the table we have to fight politics with politics to see that that the health of the American people is properly protected.  The EPA must not be allowed to duck or drag its feet on this matter. Their mandate is to protect our health and the environment - it is not to run interference for the US Public Health Service or Dow.

The US Congress should also shine a spotlight on the CDC, which in 1999 claimed that fluoridation was one of the top 10 public health achievements of the twentieth century and based its claims for safety on the previous NRC review from 1993. This is what the CDC wrote in 1999, a position it has continued to re-iterate until 2005:

Now that the NRC has changed its position on the adequacy of the MCLG of 4 ppm, and provided enormous amount of documentation and discussion backing up some of these listed concerns, what will the CDC now say about the safety of water fluoridation?

At the very least we would hope that the US Congress would insist that the same people who enthusiastically promote fluoridation at the CDC - who even go as far as making personal appearances in front o State legislatures to promote mandatory fluoridation - are not the same people who keep track of the health issues. This is clearly a conflict of interest and does not serve the American people very well.

This week Bassin’s research on osteosarcoma will be published. If she confirms her thesis findings that showed a relationship between the consumption of fluoridated water by young boys in their mid-childhood and this frequently fatal bone cancer we will be one step closer to the end of water fluoridation.

Paul Connett

PS I hope that readers will draw from these arguments material for letters to the editors of your local papers as well as your Congressional representatives. If you do so would you be kind enough to send us a copy so that we can share them with others.

For those who have the necessary equipment I will be on a 30 minute radio show tomorrow at 11:00 am EST. The show is Building Healthy Bodies, heard on www.homegrownradionj.com