In this third part of our rebuttal, Secure Arkansas is making a strong argument that the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) is misleading our legislators and the general public. We want our lawmakers to plainly comprehend the fluoridation debacle. Secure Arkansas is simply saying to the ADH: ”No, you’re wrong, and this is why” – stating our argument and providing evidence.
Continuing the way we’ve been doing it in our past two alerts, text shown in black font below is the transcription of statements made by each speaker during the Joint Health Committee meeting on October 5, 2015 regarding water fluoridation in Arkansas, and text shown in red font shows Secure Arkansas’ written comments about each speaker’s statements after the fact. The blue text comments are from Sandra Young, MD.
– – – – –
(17:07 of full audio file)
Dr. Nate Smith: And a final reminder… Poor oral health means loss of productivity, it’s estimated in the U.S. that 164 million work hours are lost every year due to dental health issues. Over 51 million hours of education are lost around the country due to poor dental health. And then, of course, resources – caring for those with cavities and other oral health problems. These basically are state issues, and that should be kept in mind when we’re talking about the issue of local control.
[The statement of “It has been estimated that 51 million school hours are lost every year to dental-related illness alone” came from (Gift 1997) Reference: Gift HC. 1997. Oral health outcomes research: Challenges and opportunities. In Slade GD, ed., Measuring Oral Health and Quality of Life (pp. 25–46). Chapel Hill, NC: Department of Dental Ecology, University of North Carolina. This same report was reprinted in the “United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General. National Institute of Health, 2000”. This report, along with a lot of other so-called evidence claimed by the dental community, was compiled based on a 1989 National Health Interview Survey from 50,000 US households (117,000 individuals). This was a survey with no scientific data to back up the report. This is just another piece of flawed data on which the ADH is relying, coming out of the CDC and other government agencies.
“Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation” by Dr. Colquhoun
This article shows that the fluoridation studies show very little, if any, benefit from fluoridation since 1980. The article also lists the harm from fluoridation which is actually evidence against fluoridating. The public had always been assured that there was absolutely no possibility of any harm caused by fluoridation, and we know that isn’t true.
This article shows that fluoridation is not helping to prevent dental decay. At the same time, it will show how the Dental Trade Organizations have used flawed studies to convince dentists that fluoridation was useful.]
I’ll go ahead and conclude my remark here, and just open it up for any questions.
House Chair Kelley Linck: We’ve got some questions popped up. We’ll recognize Representative Payton… (To Rep. Payton) You’re recognized for questions.
Rep. John Payton: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, I appreciate your presentation, very informative, and I’ve had a lot of questions coming from my district on this topic, so… I have developed a curiosity. One of the main things you spoke… about the importance of maintaining the right concentration levels. I would assume that that means that if concentration levels become higher, there could be a concern? Is that correct?
Dr. Nate Smith: If they became very high. I believe the threshold for concern is 2 ppm, which is more than twice the recommended levels. [All four of the possible fluoride chemicals noted on the Material Safety Data Sheets below show the harm caused by repeated or prolonged exposure to the toxic fluoride poison. Yes, even Natural Fluoride causes harm to the body and its organs. The first fluoride listed below “Calcium Fluoride (CaF2)” is what is called natural fluoride, and this is the fluoride that the Arkansas Department of Health claims is safe. Click here to see for yourself if Natural Fluoride is safe or not. You should find that even Natural Fluoride is toxic.
Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure of the eyes to a low level of dust can produce eye irritation. Repeated skin exposure can produce local skin destruction, or dermatitis. Repeated inhalation of dust can produce varying degree of respiratory irritation or lung damage.
Sodium Fluoride (NaF) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.
Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated or prolonged contact with spray mist may produce chronic eye irritation and severe skin irritation. Repeated or prolonged exposure to spray mist may produce respiratory tract irritation leading to frequent attacks of bronchial infection. Repeated or prolonged inhalation of vapors may lead to chronic respiratory irritation.
Sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.]
Rep. John Payton: So, my question is not really that, it’s more about, how do we maintain the correct concentration, and is there any monitoring downstream? And can water that is properly mixed and has the right concentration, as it goes over the hills and through the valleys and out into rural Arkansas where there may not be heavy usage, can it, can the concentration level change due to, you know, stagnation in high or low areas… or anything like that? [The question is: how will the fluoride concentration of 0.7mg/L be maintained along the complete length of the pipeline? (As stated previously, concentration is not equivalent to dose. Dose is related to the amount consumed based on the weight of the patient. If someone half your size drinks the same amount as you do, their dose is twice your dose. – S. Young MD)]
Dr. Nate Smith: Great. I am very glad you asked that question, that’s an excellent question, and I have with me Jeff Stone, who’s our chief engineer, and he will give you a better quality answer than I would be able to give. [Many of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests sent to ADH have gone unanswered or were returned with “We do not know”. To see the FOIA request sent to the ADH, click here.]
House Chair Kelley Linck: Thank you.
Jeff Stone: There are three ways that ensure that only the right amount of fluoride is added. First of all, we make sure that the working amount of fluoride within their plant ready to feed is only enough for that day, or 2 or 3 days, and then they have to refill that to where if there’s any overfeeds will be limited. [He’s actually admitting that there is a possibility of an overfeed! What exactly does he mean when he says “overfeeds will be limited”? Will an overfeed be more than the EPA’s maximum contaminant levels? ]
Secondly, and most importantly, each fluoride installation of water systems, the water operator is required to have an analyzer to where he can take daily checks and know that the amount he thinks he’s feeding is, in fact, the amount that he is feeding. The third way is that we also set up a schedule for the water systems to send us a check sample in once a month where we analyze it on more sophisticated laboratory equipment to give that operator a feedback on whether his instrument in his plant is giving accurate results or not. The second part of your question, “Can this concentrate out in other areas and remote lines?” The answer is “no”. It’s a fact of the chemistry that once you dissolve fluoride and it disperses into the water, nature wants things to be dispersed, and only some sort of intervention could come in and concentrate it again. It may not be a perfect analogy, but it would almost be similar to smoke dissipating into the air. You never see smoke concentrating again. It dissipates, so… (21:08) [Fluoride never dissipates (disappears) from the water! If fluoride can’t be boiled out of the water, it sure hasn’t disappeared like “nature wants things to be dispersed, ” as Jeff Stone quoted.]
Rep. John Payton: Well, I appreciate that answer, but let me clarify. At the plant where they add the fluoride, there’s no type of monitoring equipment – it’s dependent on somebody pulling a sample and that sample being tested?
Jeff Stone: The pump that adds fluoride is sized to add the right amount. The operator has an analytical piece of equipment to do a daily check, and then we have a monthly check sample. We do not rely upon a constant, continuous analyzer to give a computer-type readout on concentration because the accuracy of such equipment is highly dependent on calibrations and… and those sort of things. [Fluoride overfeed will always be a problem when you have humans involved. In a small community of Mississippi, there was an outbreak of acute fluoride poisoning in 1993 due to an overfeed problem. The result was 34 of 62 restaurant patrons reported acute gastrointestinal illness over a 24 hour period. Twenty of 61 households that used the public water supply reported one or more residents with acute gastrointestinal illness over a 4 day period. The samples of the water contained more than 40mg of fluoride per liter. The investigation determined that a faulty feed pump at one of the town’s two treatment plants had allowed the overfeed to pump this large poisonous fluoride chemical into the public water supply.]
Rep. John Payton: So, equipment exists… it’s just not as reliable as depending on somebody to pull… a sample?
Jeff Stone: That pulling of the sample keeps the operator directly involved in the concentration and monitoring of it and not relying on a number on a screen that may be subject to instrumentation differences. [Wouldn’t it be more protective and proactive to use both methods to ensure every precautionary measure is taken?]
Rep. John Payton: Ok. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
***ADH Dr. Nate Smith: And I, maybe, just add to that a reminder, we’ve been doing this for decades and decades, and so it’s, it’s pretty well worked out, and safety features have, you know, it’s not proved to be a safety concern in… in places where we’ve been fluoridating for, you know, seventy years, so… [Fluoride overfeeds do happen and are many times not reported. There are some small water facilities in Arkansas that do not have anyone monitoring the system on weekends. Here’s one example of not reporting overfeeds like San Antonio,Texas. “To put this 2004 Fluoride “spill/overfeed” into perspective, 280 ppm is approximately twice the level estimated in Hooper Bay Alaska in 1992, when a Fluoride “spill/overfeed’ resulted in death. Hydrofluosilicic Acid, the toxic waste byproduct of the Florida Phosphate Fertilizer Industry used to “Fluoridate”, is tasteless and odorless; therefore, human exposure symptoms (sickness) are the only way that the 2004 “spill/overfeed” was detected.” In fact, the “overfeed/spill” in 2004 was reported to a local TCEQ employee, who apparently did not know the regulations or chose NOT to follow them.” Fluoridation is forced medication in itself, but these overfeeds are mass medication on a grand scale.]
THIS JUST IN: Mosaic Fertilizer Lawsuit Settlement (October 1, 2015)
Mosaic produces phosphorus-based fertilizer that is commonly applied to corn, wheat, and other crops across the country. Sulfuric acid is used to extract phosphorus from mined rock, which produces large quantities of a solid material called phosphogypsum and wastewater that contains high levels of acid. (They are talking about fluorosilicic acid which is what is used for water fluoridation. See highlighted portion in the bulleted section below.) EPA inspections revealed that Mosaic was mixing certain types of highly-corrosive substances from its fertilizer operations – which qualify as hazardous waste – with the phosphogypsum and wastewater from mineral processing, which is a violation of federal and state hazardous waste laws.
Mosaic will pay a $5 million civil penalty to the United States and $1.55 million to the State of Louisiana and $1.45 million to the State of Florida, who joined EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice as plaintiffs in this case and who will assist EPA in implementing the terms of the settlement.
EPA inspected Mosaic’s phosphate production facilities in Florida and Louisiana and alleged the following violations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):
Failure to make hazardous waste determinations for scrubber effluents, fluorosilicic acid-production wastes, product spills and leaks, and wastes from cleaning pipes and tanks (40 C.F.R. § 262.11);
Treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes without a permit or interim status (42 U.S.C. § 6925(a) and 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subparts A-G, K, and CC);
Failure to perform land disposal determinations and to meet land disposal restrictions for hazardous wastes (40 C.F.R. Part 268);
Failure to provide adequate financial assurance for closure, lodatang-term care, and third-party liability (40 C.F.R. Part 264 Subpart H); and
Failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements (40 C.F.R. § 262.40).
Rep. John Payton: Thank you.
(22:51 in the full audio file)
House Chair Kelley Linck: Next up it’s… Representative Payton, I think you’re finished, right? Okay. Senator Stubblefield, you are recognized for questioning.
Senator Stubblefield: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Dr. Smith, for your presentation. The figures that you gave us on this fluoride, that’s based on the assumption that everyone, the 2 million people are all actually drinking this water from the water systems, is that correct?
Dr. Nate Smith: I’m sorry, can you repeat your question? I’m not sure I…
Senator Stubblefield: The figures that you gave us earlier… concerning fluoride and 2 million people, that’s based on the assumption that all of these people are actually drinking water from the water systems. Is that correct?
Dr. Nate Smith: The number of people, the over 2 million, are those who are served by water systems that are fluoridated. [That’s now two-thirds of Arkansans being poisoned in their homes by tap water, thanks to the 2011 fluoridation mandate.]
[This is an individual’s decision and NOT a state issue.
Why? Because each person’s beliefs and health status differs.]
Senator Stubblefield: But, what I’m saying is, you’re assuming that all those 2 million are actually drinking water from these water systems. [Senator Stubblefield brings up an excellent point that shows how the ADH can be misleading in their supposedly factual ‘facts’.]
Dr. Nate Smith: No, not necessarily. Are you talking about… the…
Senator Stubblefield: I’m talking about taking into consideration the amount of people that buy water… use water that’s not fluoridated… (Not all bottled water is fluoride free. In fact, about 40% of bottled water is simply tap water. You do not know unless you can obtain the company’s water quality test results. Most municipal tap water has to adhere to stricter standards than the bottled water industry. Those companies have created a niche because people feel their water is unsafe. The Environmental Working Group analyzed problems with bottled water in 2011. Their report can be found at http://www.ewg.org/research/
Dr. Nate Smith: Certainly people do that.
Senator Stubblefield: A LOT of people do that. In fact, since Act 197 has been put into place, a LOT MORE people are actually doing it. So, those figures are based, I mean you’re just assuming that ALL these people, these 2 million, are actually drinking this water that’s been fluoridated, right? [Secure Arkansas is hard pressed to think of people we know who are actually drinking their tap water! We know it is contaminated! When Hot Springs Village was forced to fluoridate their water, the Walmart in the area started selling and supplying much more bottled than ever before. Hot Springs Village is a retirement community whose population is around 15,000 with only 900 children. Most residents are working on their third set of teeth. Why the need to fluoridate the whole community when it would be cheaper to give these children fluoride supplements with the consent of the parents? Parents who are educated about fluoride would never actually consent to fluoride supplements or fluoridated water!]
Dr. Nate Smith: No, not necessarily assuming that, but they have access to it.
Senator Stubblefield: How do you… how do you know, I mean how do you make that, how do you get that factual?
Dr. Nate Smith: I’m not… I’m not… I’m sort of missing…
Senator Stubblefield: How do you, do you do a poll? I mean, how do you determine how many of those people are actually drinking the water from these water systems? That’s been fluoridated?
Dr. Nate Smith: Now, I think it would be very difficult to determine, and it could vary from… from time to time. When we… When there have been studies that have been done of fluoridated communities versus non-fluoridated communities, those have been repeated many times, many of those studies are… are… you know, before people commonly were using bottled water. Think about it. When I was growing up, probably when you were growing up, bottled water was just…
[ABC News reports Aquafina has changed its labels to specify P.W.S. — Public Water Source — under pressure from Accountability International. PepsiCo spokeswoman Michelle Naughtron called this a “reasonable thing to do” if it helped people understand that they were paying a premium to have the same water they get in their bathroom sink labeled with a serene mountain scene. The pro-fluoride faction, Delta Dental and many others, want to blame bottled water for the reason tooth decay in this country is epidemic, but many people are drinking fluoridated municipal water when they purchase bottled water. The American Dental Association (ADA) spokesperson Dr.Jonathan Shenkin said, “There has been no research to show using bottled water causes tooth decay,” in a Dentistry Today article. Yet in this statement “Individuals who drink bottled water as their primary source of water could be missing the decay preventive effects of the fluoridated water available from their community water supply since most bottled water does not contain optimal levels of fluoride.” It is still all over their website and in public statements. The following study found no conclusive evidence of an association with increased caries, ”according to “An investigation of bottled water use and caries in the mixed dentition”, published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry. “Bottled water use in this cohort was fairly limited (approximately 10 percent).
While bottled water users had significantly lower fluoride intakes, especially fluoride from water, there were no significant differences found in either permanent tooth caries (P = 0.20 and 0.91 for prevalence and D(2+)FS, respectively) or primary second molar caries (P = 0.94 and 0.74 for incidence and d(2+)fs increment, respectively). Results for smooth surfaces differed somewhat from those for pit and fissure surfaces, but neither showed significant differences related to bottled water use.” Tooth decay rates are soaring despite 70 years of fluoridation, 60 years of fluoridated toothpaste, a glut of fluoridated dental products, and a fluoride-saturated food supply.
The USDA provides a database of fluoride contents of food. Click here for a quick view of the fluoride content of many common foods. Click here for a longer 26-page report of how much fluoride is in the foods many of us are consuming daily.]
Senator Stubblefield: …non existent
Dr. Nate Smith: …non existent. We were fluoridating… [There was no bottled water, but they were fluoridating? People have been bottling fresh spring water for years!]
Senator Stubblefield: There was a lot of wells, you know, a lot of people drinking well water then. [This makes much more sense than “we were fluoridating”!]
Dr. Nate Smith: Around the country, though, there were many, many systems that were fluoridating even back then, so there was lots of opportunities to compare fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities. and that’s where we have a lot of evidence concerning the safety and also the effectiveness in reducing cavities and in reducing dental costs. (Do we have any evidence about the safety of fluoridation and the effectiveness of reducing dental cavities and reducing dental costs in Arkansas? Have we done any analysis for Arkansas? Little Rock started fluoridating in 1951. Is their cavity rate lower than previously non-fluoridated areas of the state?)
[“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” ~ Mark Twain
The original studies that are used to this day as proof that fluoridation works were never completed because they polluted the control study with fluoride six years into a 15 year study. Here is the timeline:
1945 Federal scientists choose four pairs of cities for a 13- to 15-year study of fluoridation: Grand Rapids and Muskegon, MI; Newburgh and Kingston, NY; Evanston and Oak Park, IL; and Brantford and Sarnia, Ontario. Grand Rapids becomes the first city in the world to have fluoridated water.
1951 Muskegon, the comparison city for Grand Rapids, begins fluoridating its own water supply. Communities across the country join in, well in advance of any published results of the four-cities studies which were never completed
1962 Results from the Grand Rapids study are published. The findings are called into question because the control was dropped 6 years into the study.
Newburgh and Kingston were two New York cities among the first “Fluoridation Trials.” Newburgh was fluoridated and Kingston was not. Those 1945 trials were supposed to run 14 years, but the scheme was declared a success by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) after just five years.
Follow-up studies of these two New York towns have proved to be problematic for the PHS. In the 40 years later report, dental researchers found that children in fluoridated Newburgh had much more dental fluorosis, but no fewer cavities than non-fluoridated Kingston children, except in one category. In the poorest socioeconomic class, the average number of cavities in non-fluoridated Kingston was 2 cavities. The average in fluoridated Newburgh was 1.5 cavities. That is a statistically significant difference of 25% fewer cavities among this very small group of perhaps a hundred out of a sample of a 1493 children. That’s the 25% fluoridationist trumpet – a misleading statistic, cherry picked, and meaningless out of context.
Fluoridation trials also report that tooth eruption is delayed and time of menarche (a female’s first menstrual period) is earlier in fluoridated communities. The 2006 National Research Council confirmed fluoride is an endocrine disruptor. (Page 224-241) It has an adverse impact on our hormones and immune system, on our overall health.]
Senator Stubblefield: What is the origin of this fluoride? What was the origin of fluoride we used 30 years ago in some of these older… compared to… what is the origin now? Where’s this fluoride originate from?
ADH Director Dr. Nate Smith: I’m not aware of any changes in the manufacture of the fluoride that’s added, but Jeff may be able to give some more details… [There has been change, not with the manufacturing but the type of fluoride used: a bait and switch! Dartmouth researcher warns of chemicals added to drinking water. In an article published in the journal NeuroToxicology, a research team led by Roger D. Masters, Dartmouth College Research Professor, and Nelson A. Rockefeller, Professor of Government Emeritus, reports evidence that public drinking water treated with sodium silicofluoride or fluosilicic acid, known as silicofluorides (SiFs), is linked to higher uptake of lead in children.
Sodium fluoride, first added to public drinking water in 1945, is now used in less than 10% of fluoridation systems nationwide, according to the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) 1992 Fluoridation Census. Instead, SiF’s are now used to treat drinking water delivered to millions of people. While sodium fluoride was tested on animals and approved for human consumption, the same cannot be said for SiFs.
In collecting data for a fact sheet, EPA was not able to identify any chronic studies for the two chemicals used in 90% of U.S. fluoridation programs (sodium fluosilicic acid and hydrofluosilicic acid) These chemicals are not pharmaceutical grade substances.
For a manufacturer to receive certification for their fluoridation product, NSF requires submission of toxicological information, if available. No studies on the silicofluorides have ever been submitted to NSF. National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) 2000, response to questions posed by subcommittee of the House Committee on Science PDF (42K).
Senator Stubblefield: I mean, what… Does it come from the United States? Does it come from some other country?
ADH Engineer Jeff Stone: We don’t track the country by origin, (Unacceptable!) but it’s my understanding that most fluoride supplies come from the… ore that…. liberates phosphate and is mined in part for producing fertilizers, and it contains fluoride, and that’s typically the source of fluoride is that ore… [Mr. Stone’s statement is an example of why our law makers sometimes make bad decisions because they are only given half-truths. Why won’t he just tell the whole truth and talk about the “wet scrubbers” (water spray systems) – the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture the fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer? In the process of converting phosphate rock into soluble fertilizer, two very toxic fluoride gases are released: hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride. After being captured in the scrubber, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid) – a classified hazardous waste – is transported by tanker truck, barreled up, and sold, unrefined. Now that’s the whole truth!]
[Florida Institute of Phosphate Research – FIPR
An Independent State Research Agency
[“Fluorine from the phosphate industry is one example. In the late 1960s, the state of Florida passed laws restricting air emissions in part because fluorine from the phosphate industry had begun to harm citrus trees and there were cases of fluorosis in cattle. Since that time, phosphate companies have improved the techniques they use to remove contaminants before they are released into the air – such as scrubbing the stacks that processing plants use to release steam. Today fluoride emissions are not considered to be a problem. It is scrubbed from the stack and is either recovered to make fluosilicic acid, which can be sold for uses such as water fluoridation, or is sent to the cooling pond where losses to the air are within regulatory limits.
One of the biggest concerns of FIPR’s public and environmental health research area has been what impact the natural make-up of Florida phosphate rock can have on the environment or human health. Florida’s typical phosphate rock contains naturally occurring uranium-238 and radium-226, the latter of which gives birth to radon – an odorless, colorless gas that in extremely elevated concentrations is known to cause lung cancer. In much lower concentrations associated with the natural and mined environments, it is not known if radon can cause cancer, so it is safer to assume that it does. All mineralized land in Florida has elevated radon levels, but the redistribution of soil due to mining and reclamation often provides pathways for the gas to reach the surface and also increases surface levels of radium, hence radon and radiation levels.”]
Senator Stubblefield: I mean, this fluoride we’re buying and putting in our water here in Arkansas, we don’t have a point of origin?
Dr. Nate Smith: When I… the… Yeah, I’m a medical doctor, not a … not an engineer, but the sources I’ve read estimate about eighty percent of that is produced here in the U.S., but the essential thing is… is that the quality and purity of the compounds – less so the geographic locations where it was produced… [If ADH is more concerned about the “purity of the compounds”, then why are they not following all NSF and AWWA standards, which is required by law? The standards state that the chemical is to be tested upon arrival at the water plant.
Here’s how an obscure trade association, formed in 1944 to make standards for restaurant sanitation chemicals, grew to the point where today, it has agency-like authority to approve fluoridation materials and other chemicals as safe to drink, usurping the role of the FDA.
Starting in 1985, the EPA delegated authority to NSF to approve fluoridation materials and other additives to drinking water.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) replaced its own drinking water additives program with NSF/ANSI Standards 60 and 61, which set public health standards for all chemicals used to treat water and products coming into contact with drinking water. The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) certifies fluoridation materials to be safe. The 2008 NSF Fluoride Fact Sheet makes the following representations: Standard 60 requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation. NSF Rule 60 states that some 20 toxicological tests of fluoridation materials must be done. NSF has admitted that the tests are not done. None of the listed toxicological studies are done, neither by NSF nor by suppliers of fluoridation materials. Yet NSF allows vendors of fluoridation materials to use the NSF Mark, a symbol of compliance with the NSF Rule 60 Standard. NSF is usurping the role of the FDA in certifying the fluoride drug to be safe, the FDA should order NSF to cease in its certification of fluoridation materials to be safe. It’s interesting that he NSF Joint Committee consists of product manufacturing representatives. *Fluoride has never been approved by the FDA!*
*Click here to see all the metals and contaminants found in the fluoride additive. “This study demonstrates that the metal contaminant content of raw fluoride additives is highly batch-dependent. There was as much as a 10-fold difference between batches in the concentration levels of arsenic, lead, and barium: contaminants classified as a risk to human health by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. As no two additive samples were found to have the same exposure profile in this study, assumptions about metal content are unreliable if based on manufacturer source or certification by NSF. Although the AWWA affirms the HFS purchasers’ right to know the source of a raw product when manufactured outside North America, such information is meaningless when there is cross-contamination between HFS shipments stored in common tanks. Likewise, cross-contamination may impact metal content when all imported salt additives, regardless of source, chemical form, or intended usage are handled in the same repackaging equipment. The fact that NaF samples in this study were obtained from bulk supplies not yet repackaged, suggests that the unexpectedly high SiO2 levels were more a function of mislabeling than cross-contamination.”]
Senator Stubblefield: Does any of this fluoride come from China?
[Senator Stubblefield, here’s the answer to your question of whether some fluoride comes from China.]
ADH Jeff Stone: We don’t track the origin, but the National Sanitation Foundation has a presence in laboratories on three different continents, so wherever it comes from, if it bears an NSF certification, it’s been through quality checks that should prevent any type of contamination occurring from the chemical supply. [Fluoride is NOT routinely re-tested when it arrives in the United States from foreign countries!]
Senator Stubblefield: Do we track any of these other ingredients that you said we added, Dr. Smith? To other… We don’t track ANY of it?
ADH Jeff Stone: We don’t take an interest in where it comes from but rather the quality checks that have been done.
ADH Dr. Nate Smith: Basically, the chemical structure doesn’t… doesn’t change based on country of origin. It’s… so, most elemental chemicals… you know, fluoride is an element, it’s not the result… Fluoride itself is not the result of an extensive manufacturing product, it’s basically a raw material. (Please see the previous discussion posted on 10/22/2015 on the origin of hydrofluosilicic acid as well as preceding comments. However the contaminants in it can change, and not just based on the origin. Mullenix tested for contaminants and found them to vary from batch to batch. Do we test each batch? Does the NSF 60 testing that we so depend on test for all chemicals? When a physician orders a blood test, if he asks for a glucose level, he will not get a uric acid level. It has to be ordered specifically. Unless you test for a specific impurity, you will not know that it is in there. They found melamine in dog food that came from China. While I don’t think the Chinese are adding melamine to our fluoridation chemicals, they could be adding another unknown substance. Unless we know to test for it, we will never know. One water plant that was adding fluoride that originated from China had a leftover sludge that was unidentified. I do not know of that happening in Arkansas yet, but we need to /be vigilant and diligent in our testing efforts. – S. Young MD)
Senator Stubblefield: Well, I’m just… and I agree with that, and I appreciate that, but I still think it’s a little odd that we do not know exactly where the fluoride comes from… That just seems odd to me that we don’t know… We’re buying all this, and we don’t know where it’s coming from.
House Chair Kelley Linck: (reply) You know, Senator Stubblefield, you might consider legislation next time that demands we know the source of the fluoridation of the water in Arkansas.
Senator Stubblefield: Mr Chairman, I think that the Department of Health should provide that information to us… without legislation. [The solution would be for the water operator to request the country of origin in any bid request of fluoride product to the supplier. If the supplier CANNOT provide the country of origin, this would disqualify the bid.
How about some legislation that would require country of origin and assure ADH follows the law and enforces content testing of the (raw) fluoridation product.? A Water Additive Accountability law would assure us, We The People, that the fluoridation chemical is what they say it is and that it is safe and effective for everyone.]
House Chair Linck: (reply) We can ask ‘em to do that.
Senator Stubblefield: I would appreciate that.
House Chair Linck: (reply) I don’t know if it’s something they track or can track… [They would if there was a country of origin label on the product.]
Stubblefield: Well, I’d appreciate it if they could provide us with that information as to where the fluoride comes from. [The senator has stated, “provide us with that information” twice now.]
ADH Dr. Nate Smith: We can certainly look into identifying the sources. I’m not sure about the feasibility of that or how much it would cost to do that, but we will certainly look into that….
House Chair Linck: (reply) I don’t, I don’t know that you oversee where the… the people that check the fluoride is… I don’t know that anybody would oversee that as long as it’s inspected by the group that you’d mentioned. [Why not, Rep. Linck?]
ADH Nate Smith: (reply) Right. It… it’s… The chemicals are purchased by the individual water operators, is that not correct… or? And we assure the quality by making sure that it’s met those standards, that it’s certified, [A Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request was made to Mr. Reginald A. Rogers of the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) on August 3, 2015 requesting “A list of the hydrofluorosilicic acid and silicofluoride manufacturers that submitted their products to NSF for certification. The answer received from ADH was “We do not have”. At present, the ADH does not have a list of fluoride chemicals that they can recommend to the water operator as being certified by NSF.] so, but I can… I can look into how long it will take for us to go through those individual water operators and find out…
House Chair Linck: It would be simpler, I guess, for the Department of Health being able to tell us exactly where, what the source is, where the chickens in every restaurant came from… because it’s up to the individual operator… regards to where they purchased what. [The real solution here would be for the water operator to include in their bid request of any fluoride product the following statements: 1) Provide a product disclosure and the toxicological information for the fluoride product being request in this bid. 2) Provide the assurance of safety and effectiveness of fluoride products to be provided. 3) The supplier of fluoride product to absorb the cost of testing the fluoride product by a third party when it arrives on site to make sure that the product matches the Certificate of Analysis that is shipped with the product. 4) Provide the country of origin of the fluoride product requested in this bid. (Note to water operator: If any of the 4 items are not provided by the supplier, this will void the fluoride bid request. Please check NSF/ANSI Standard 60 section 3.2.1 – see page numbered 4.]
ADH Dr. Nate Smith: That… that’s correct..
House Chair Linck: K. Does that make sense, Senator? K.
Sen. Stubblefield: Most of the chicken is labeled and the contents are okay…
Linck: And this label is inspected. The chicken is label and inspected as well.
Stubblefield: I think we know where Tyson’s is located, though.
Linck: That’s true, that’s true. Thank you…
(end at 30:36 of full audio file for this alert)
= = = = =
Stay tuned for Part 4…
Link to the videos from the Joint Health Committee meeting on 10/5/2015:
Click here to listen to the audio-only of the minutes covered in this alert.
Be sure to forward this email to your family and friends!
They may also sign up to receive our Action Alerts by clicking here.
Local control of water and our freedom from fluoride poison are important!
As always, you can find our email articles posted on our website: SecureArkansas.com. The Search box is a handy tool.
For more information about FLUORIDE, just type it into the Search box on our website, and click Enter!
Securing the blessings of liberty,