NUCLEAR NEWS FOR LIFE FLUORIDE

1997
National Academy of Sciences
Review of Fluoride Called A Travesty
Source: Business Wire
 
WASHINGTON---- In panel discussions of a soon-to-be-published reference
for suggested dietary intake levels held on Sept. 23 at the National
Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., the union which represents and
consists of the scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professionals
at Environmental Protection Agency, headquarters,
Washington, D.C., issued a scathing indictment of the National Academy
of Sciences review of fluoride.
 
The union statement reveals that allowing the "tolerable upper intake"
level of fluoride included in the NAS report for a 9 year old would
result in an accumulation of three times the amount of fluoride
necessary to create high risk of skeletal fluorosis as early as age 39.
"Our union members' review of the literature over the last 11 years has
led us to conclude that a causal link exists between fluoride exposure
and cancer, increased risk of hip fracture and damage to the central
nervous system," reads the statement from the National Federation of
Federal Employees, local 2050.
 
"For the National Academy of Sciences to attempt to anoint this
substance (fluoride) an 'essential nutrient' is a travesty and a matter
of shame for the U.S. science community."   The union of scientists'
statement went even further and attacked the entire process of the NAS
review and risk characterization of fluoride. "When a chemical
manufacturer wants to make a new chemical to use, for example, as an
additive in motor oil, all existing toxicological data must be presented
to the Environmental Protection Agency for review of potential risks
before manufacture and use can begin.
 
"In the (NAS Dietary Reference) we see risk characterization principles,
as applied to a major public policy issue, flouted -- even the existence
of a massive body of information on adverse effects of fluoride is
ignored, let alone discussed. And this for a chemical the National
Academy of Sciences recommends we purposely add to our diets, not our
motor oil.   "Furthermore, the claimed benefits from the 'adequate
intake' level have been shown to be based on biased or otherwise flawed
studies. Not a single one of those studies was a randomized control
trial."
 
Another participant in the open-to-the-public workshop, Dr. Paul
Connett, professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University at Canton,
N.Y. and international expert on dioxin health risk assessment pointed
out that the recommendations in the NAS review relied on an erroneous
computation, first published in the 1940s in support of the safety of
fluoride, but belatedly corrected by the author, Harold Hodge, in 1979.
 
Connett noted that it doesn't require a rocket scientist or even a
calculator to recognize the error or to correct the math, which
consisted of merely converting kilograms to pounds.   American Dental
Association representative Dr. Herschel Horowitz interrupted Connett's discussion of fluoride toxicity with a claim that fluoride was not a cumulative poison. Horowitz's outburst was countered by Dr. J. William Hirzy, senior vice president of NFFE Local 2050, who reminded the panel that, beyond all other evidence, the NAS document itself referenced retention of 50 percent of ingested fluoride in the bones and tissue, and cited fluoride poisoning of cryolite workers who did not become sick on the first day, but after prolonged exposure.
 
The statement by NFFE continues, "The document, 'Dietary Reference
Intakes, Prepublication Copy' (DRI) is seriously flawed and deficient as
an instrument to justify a public policy to establish fluoride as an
'essential nutrient.' The DRI document is rife with inadequacy, error
and deceptive information on this substance, only some of which can be
touched upon here.   "For example, the only adverse effects of fluoride
exposure discussed in DRI are enamel and skeletal fluorosis. These
effects are only cursorily and deceptively touched upon, and no
connection is made between them, as though they were independent effects
and fluoride affinity for, and damage to enamel is not a biochemical
window on what is happening in bone.  "While DRI lays out the parameters
for conducting risk assessments and characterization in Chapter 3, it
ignores application of those parameters egregiously with respect to fluoride in
purporting to establish a 'tolerable upper intake level.' One component
of risk assessment is hazard identification, whose components include addressing evidence of adverse effects in humans.

"DRI attempts to deceive the public into believing that the only
identified adverse effects of fluoride exposure of significance are
those mentioned above (skeletal and enamel fluorosis). The DRI document
omits any mention of studies in humans showing increased risk of hip
fractures and bone cancer and decreased I.Q. in children in areas
with artificially fluoridated water or other sources of dietary fluoride
that result in fluoride intakes that are below the 'tolerable upper
intake level.'  "Neither does the DRI document properly address use of
animal data in the hazard and risk assessments on fluoride. There are recent (1990-1995) animal data supporting concern for both cancer and central nervous system effects. 
"Even if one grants as accurate the statement at page 8-15 in the prepublication copy of DRI, 'Most research has indicated that an intake of at least 10 mg/day
for 10 or more years is needed to produce clinical signs of the milder forms of the condition' (skeletal fluorosis), consider the simple mathematics of this 'tolerable upper intake' level.
 
"That level is set at 10 mg/day for individuals aged 9 years and up. At
age 39, the individual who has received the 'tolerable upper intake'
since age 9 will have accumulated 3 times the amount of fluoride needed,
according to the DRI, to put him or her at high risk of skeletal
fluorosis -- not to mention bone fracture, cancer and decreased mental
capacity.  Dr. Vernon Young, chairman of the standing Committee on
the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes of the Institute
of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, seemed to surprise the
workshop participants in an exchange with Hirzy, when Young protested that the NAS document was not attempting to establish fluoride as an essential nutrient.

In response to Hirzy's pressing Young on the NAS document's intent to
establish fluoride as an essential nutrient by implication, Young
repeatedly refused to state that fluoride is a nutrient at all,
repeating that "It is a beneficial element."  After numerous pertinent
questions from Connett to the panel were answered with "I don't know,"
without any effort to determine an answer, in another heated exchange,
Connett demanded and received an apology from panelist Cutberto Garza,
chair of the Food and Nutrition Board, for comments that Garza made
toward Connett regarding Connett having the sessions videotaped,
implying that Connett was doing so for personal profit. Connett related
to the panel that citizens in Washington, California , Pennsylvania and
around the United States facing government-mandated fluoridation had a
right to be informed and questioned the genuineness of the panel's
interest in public disclosure.
 
A videotape of the proceedings is available to the media upon request at
no cost by calling 800/728-3833. A copy of the NFFE statement is also
available by calling Hirzy
at 202/260-4683, or writing c/o NFFE Local 2050, Mail Code UN-200,
USEPA, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.   CONTACT: Dr. J.
William Hirzy, 202/260-4683
*********************************************************
Karin Schumacher
Vaccine Information & Awareness (VIA)
12799 La Tortola
San Diego,  CA  92129
619-484-3197 (phone/voicemail)
619-484-1187 (fax)
via@access1.net (email)
 
 
 

KOYAANISQATSI ko.yan.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.