FAN Bulletin #562

April 8, 2006

“I find it very appalling, both from a legal sense and a public health

sense, that this chemical is considered both pollution (if it were in the river or atmosphere) and a benefit (in water fluoridation) in the same sentence.”

“So Freddie is appalled:

It’s not unprecedented for something to be undesirable in the

environment but able to provide a public-health benefit. Phosphates

contribute to eutrophication of lakes but provide corrosion control to

keep lead out of water. Freddie needs to find something else to get

appalled about.”

Commissioner Mandernach:

Could you provide me with the results of tests conducted on the safety of hydrofluorosilicic acid, the chemical currently used in our municipal water supplies. At last count, 98% of the state’s population is served by this practice.

Since the National Research Council (NRC) released their findings on fluoridation, a small group of concerned people have been asking me about its legitimacy.

I hope you can help me out,

Jason Krueger

Dear Mr. Krueger:

Hydrofluosilicic acid is one of the three commonly used sources of fluoride ion within U.S. drinking water treatment processes. It is a common method of fluoride supplementation at Minnesota municipal public water supplies. Concentrations at such supplies are required by Minnesota Statute to be controlled to maintain an average concentration of 1.2 mg/L and to not exceed 1.5 mg/L. These concentrations are similar to recommended levels developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride concentrations in drinking water. This health-based standard is based on an MCL goal (MCLG), a concentration at which no adverse health effects are expected to occur within adequate margins of safety. The current fluoride MCL and MCLG are 4 mg/L. However, the National Academies’ National Resource Council (NRC) has conducted an EPA-requested study, the results of which include a recommendation that EPA lower the MCLG from 4 mg/L. A new, lower MCLG may be established following a risk assessment. A lower MCLG was determined necessary to prevent childhood severe enamel fluorosis development and to reduce risks of lifetime accumulation of fluoride into bone and possible risks of skeletal fluorosis.

EPA also has established a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL), which is a guideline for reducing the occurrence and severity of a cosmetic condition of the teeth called enamel fluorosis. The SMCL is 2 mg/L. The NRC report indicated that the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is near zero at levels below 2 mg/L. Moderate enamel fluorosis of cosmetic concern (discoloration of front teeth), as concluded in the NRC report, occur in fewer than 15% of children at the 2 mg/L SMCL. The report did not recommend any changes to the EPA SMCL.

Drinking water treatment process chemicals should be approved under NSF International / ANSI Standard 60 - “Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals - Health Effects” or equivalent certification. American Water Works Association (AWWA) approval and guidelines are generally recommended.

Please contact feel free to contact me with questions regarding this topic.

Sincerely,

David Rindal

David Rindal, MDH EH/DWP

Public Health Engineer

P.O. Box 64975

St. Paul, MN 55164-0975

Mr. Rindal,

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, I did not find an answer to my question as to the findings of any particular safety test of hydrofluorosilicic acid, and my concerns are not at ease. Please provide the researchers’ names, publication dates, and journals where the peer reviewed study was printed, if indeed, safety testing was performed.

Note that I (am) referring to industrial grade hydrofluorosilicic acid - the product in our water, not calcium fluoride - the naturally occuring element, or pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride - oftentimes found in dentists’ offices.

At the very least, can you confirm or deny that the origin of this chemical is the phosphate/fertilizer industry? All of the research I have reviewed says nothing but bad things about this chemical, given its source. Particularly alarming is a statement from Rebecca Hanmer, then the US EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water. She is quoted in a 1983 statement saying,

“…an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride…”

I find it very appalling, both from a legal sense and a public health sense, that this chemical is considered both pollution (if it were in the river or atmosphere) and a benefit (in water fluoridation) in the same sentence.

A wealth of information, including the history of fluoridation, can be found at .

I urge you to take this matter into serious debate, as it is continuing to show Minnesota’s Health Department as an organization unwilling to fulfill its mission or purpose in protecting our health.

Jason Krueger, etc

4) Then Jason received this email from Stew Thornley on April 3:

Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 06:36:15 -0500

From: “Stew Thornley”

To: “Jason Krueger”

Subject: Re: Public health concern - drinking water

So Freddie is appalled:

I find it very appalling, both from a legal sense and a public health

sense, that this chemical is considered both pollution (if it were in

the river or atmosphere) and a benefit (in water fluoridation) in the

same sentence.

It’s not unprecedented for something to be undesirable in the

environment but able to provide a public-health benefit. Phosphates

contribute to eutrophication of lakes but provide corrosion control to

keep lead out of water. Freddie needs to find something else to get

appalled about.

Stew Thornley

Health Educator

Drinking Water Protection

Minnesota Department of Health

625 North Robert Street

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-2538

General number: 651-201-4700

E-mail: stew.thornley@health.state.mn.us

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 64975

St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975