FAN Bulletin 805

May 12, 2007

Dear All,

Sometimes, it is very easy to get depressed with the state of democracy in this country, where so often lobbying power trumps truth, and the media seems to do so little to address the balance on our issue. However, the sun shone on fair play and democracy in Yarmouth, Massachusetts, last week. I arrived there on Monday and with all the blossoms out Cape Cod looked beautiful. I spent most of the day at the home of Sandy Philips working on my power point presentation. In the evening I had dinner with Sue Phelan and a half dozen friends she had brought together to meet me. These contacts were made for me by Shirley Brown (thanks Shirley ­ good networking).

The board had already heard from Myron Allukian Jr., past president of the American Public Health Association and the former dental director of the city of Boston (note the media has reported a dental crisis among inner city children in Boston despite being fluoridated for over 20 years). Allukian described the evidence that fluoridation is unsafe as ‘junk science’ but failed to produce any scientific studies to support his view. I was invited to give the other side of the story to the health board by Dr. Bruce Murphy, the health officer for Yarmouth.

At 7 pm I gave my power point presentation to the board. I spoke for 30 minutes and this was followed by 30 minutes of questioning from board members. This in turn was followed by questions and statements from the floor. About 60 people attended the meeting and the overwhelming majority was strongly opposed to fluoridation. The whole meeting was broadcast live on cable TV. It was so refreshing not to feel rushed during my presentation and that the officials were actually listening, rather than simply going through the motions.

A press report in the Cape Cod Times (front page) is printed below. From this report you will note that I urged Yarmouth to wait until ‘the EPA water division has determined a new maximum contaminant level goal’ as recommended by the NRC (2006) panel. However, Allukian is quoted in this press report as saying that ‘the National Research Council report had nothing to do with fluoride added to drinking water supplies’ and that I was misleading the public. Allukian also said that “For anyone to wait until that report (EPA water division’s determination of a new MCLG) to come out is just ridiculous.”

I sincerely hope that someone asks Allukian to produce a written analysis of the NRC report which convinces independent scientists that, as he claims, it has no relevance to water fluoridation. That is certainly not the opinion of at least three members of the NRC panel. For Allukian to convince anyone that waiting for the EPA to determine a new MCLG before proceeding with fluoridation is ³ridiculous² he would have to explain why he believes that adjusting the old MCLG for the new end points discussed in the NRC (2006) report, together with their exposure analysis, could possibly lead to an
MCLG greater than 1 ppm. If a new MCLG is set at less than 1 ppm, water fluoridation is doomed and he knows it. Perhaps, what he also knows is that pro-fluoridation fanatics in the US Public Health Service (more concerned about protecting their pet policy than protecting the health of the American people) will do whatever they can to prevent the EPA from doing an honest job on this, and that the most likely scenario is that the EPA’s (otherwise simple) calculations will be delayed for years. The public hasn’t heard a squeak from the EPA on this for 14 months.

I gave each of the Health Board members a copy of Dr. Robert Carton’s paper which argues that a new MCLG would have to be set at zero. If anyone would like a pdf copy of this paper please let me know.

Last Thursday, I spoke in Waterdown, a suburb of Hamilton, Ontario. The meeting was organized by Cindy Mayor cindymayor@hotmail.ca and was held in the Pause Awhile Tea Room. As anticipated for this first meeting there was
only a small audience (about 20 people) but nonetheless it contained a nurse, a dentist, two dental hygienists, the local health officer and a volunteer worker in an MP’s office. I spoke for exactly one hour and a lively discussion ensued. I have yet to see any press reports but there was one journalist present. Small audiences or not, I will continue to do
everything I can, after my hip replacement, to speak to as many groups as I can in Ontario, because, in my view, this province holds the key to continued fluoridation in Canada. One fair sized city halting fluoridation in Ontario would have a major impact.

On Monday, I will be leaving for a three week trip to the UK, the Isle of Man and Italy. On the Isle of Man and in Manchester, UK, I will be speaking on fluoridation. In Cornwall and Italy I will be speaking on the dangers of
incineration and promoting the alternative strategy for zero waste by 2020. This will mean that there will be a three week hiatus on bulletins. I may try to cram in a couple more before I leave.

Paul Connett
——————————————–

Cape Cod Times - Hyannis, MA,
May 08, 2007

Anti-fluoridation camp opens wide in Yarmouth

By PATRICK CASSIDY
STAFF WRITER

SOUTH YARMOUTH ‹ Two years ago the Yarmouth Board of Health bowed to public pressure and voted not to recommend fluoridation of the town’s water supply.

Now the debate is on again and last night at a hearing on the topic the pressure in the room was palpable.

“Why with anything so questionable, so possibly damaging to the rest of the population, would you even think about such a thing?” Barbara Gould of South Yarmouth asked the beleaguered board.

They were instructed by Selectman William Marasco to take up the topic again, said the board’s chairman, Benjamin Gordon.

That wasn’t good enough for some in the crowd, who shouted for an immediate vote by the board not to fluoridate. Others called for a class-action lawsuit if the town chooses to go forward with fluoridation.

Having heard from fluoridation proponents previously, the board last night heard from an opponent; Paul Connett, a professor emeritus of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York and executive director of the Fluoride
Action Network, an anti-fluoridation organization.

Connett spent a half-hour outlining the various ailments and maladies he said may be related to fluoridation, citing article after article in a whirlwind of data points and studies from countries like China and India.

“Most countries don’t fluoridate their water,” Connett said.

Fluoridation is unethical, dangerous and unnecessary, Connett said. The one part-per-million concentration recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and supported by the American Dental Association may be too much, he said.

And a recent study by the National Research Council suggested the Environmental Protection Agency re-evaluate its toxicity standard for fluoride, Connett said. “I urge Yarmouth to wait until the EPA water division has determined a new” maximum contaminant level goal.

That statement was an example of how Connett and people like him are misleading the public, said Myron Allukian Jr., past president of the American Public Health Association and the former dental director of the city of Boston.

Allukian, who spoke in favor of fluoridation before the Yarmouth Board of Selectmen in January, said the National Research Council report had nothing to do with fluoride added to drinking water supplies.

“For anyone to wait until that report to come out is just ridiculous,”Allukian said when reached by telephone last night.

Allukian said Connett’s contentions were based on “junk science” and that hundreds of studies have shown no relationship between fluoridation and various diseases Connett attributed to it.

Connett said there was no scientific evidence that eliminated fluoride as the cause of diseases such as osteosarcoma, a bone cancer that affects young men.

Allukian questioned why the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute would support fluoridation if there were a connection between cancer and adding fluoride to public water supplies.

Should the board of health choose to recommend fluoridation, the action must be advertised, followed by a 90-day waiting period, Gordon said.

If a petition is signed by 10 percent or more of the town’s population during that time, a referendum must be held.

There will be another public hearing on fluoridation in two weeks, Gordon said.

In the United States 170 million people drink fluoridated water in 10,000 communities. Statewide, 139 communities fluoridate their water.

Patrick Cassidy can be reached at pcassidy@capecodonline.com.

Paul Connett.