Tag: water

Fire Retardant Chemicals Are Contaminating Drinking Water Across the US

(Dr. Mercola) Flame retardant chemicals have been identified as one of 17 high priority chemical groups that should be avoided to reduce breast cancer.1,2 In the environment, these chemicals are also poisoning pets and wildlife. Yet despite their significant health risks, they continue being used — ostensibly because they save lives in case of fire.

However, researchers and firefighters alike say flame retardant chemicals actually cause more harm than good, as the fire suppression they provide is minuscule at best,3 while releasing toxic fumes when they burn — toxins that may be more far more likely to kill you than the fire itself.

In addition to that, the chemicals do not remain inertly bonded within the foam or upholstery until or unless a fire actually occurs. They escape in the form of dust, making their way into everything from babies’ mouths to breast milk and water supplies.

Related: Skin Creams Pose Serious Fire Risk

9 in 10 Americans Have Flame Retardant Chemicals in Their System

Research4 published in 2015 found Tris phosphate and triphenyl phosphate (TPHP) in every single dust sample collected from American homes; 91 percent of urine samples from the residents contained metabolites of Tris phosphate, and 83 percent of residents had metabolites of TPHP.

Other tests have shown 90 percent of Americans have flame retardant chemicals in their bodies, and many have six or more types in their system.5 Eighty percent of children’s products tested6 have also been found to contain flame retardant chemicals, including nursing pillows, baby carriers and sleeping wedges, which can have significant health ramifications.

As noted by Linda S. Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,7 these chemicals can alter a child’s developing reproductive system and nervous system, and have been shown to reduce IQ.8,9 For example, children born of women exposed to high levels of flame retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) during pregnancy have an average of 4.5 points lower IQ.10,11 Such children are also more prone to hyperactivity disorders.

Firefighters Are at High Risk

About half of U.S. firefighters believe cancer is the greatest occupational health risk they face.12 Indeed, California female firefighters aged 40 to 50 are six times more likely to develop breast cancer than the national average. A major reason for this is because of the high levels of dioxins and furans firefighters are exposed to when flame-retardant chemicals burn.

Related: Microplastics In Tap Water and Beer Around the Great Lakes, and Everywhere Else

What many fail to realize is that an object treated with flame retardant chemicals can indeed still catch fire — it’s merely retarded by seconds — and when it does go up in flames it will emit much higher levels of toxic carbon monoxide, soot and smoke than an untreated object. Ironically, these three things are more likely to kill you than a burn might, which means flame-retardant chemicals may actually make fires deadlier when you’re caught in them.

According to the chemical industry, fire-retardant furniture provide a fifteenfold increase in escape time in the case of a fire. This claim came from a study using powerful, NASA-style flame retardants, which provided an extra 15 seconds of escape time. But this is not the same type of chemical used in most furniture. Tests have shown that the most widely used flame-retardant chemicals actually provide no meaningful benefit in case of a fire, while increasingthe amounts of toxic chemicals in the smoke.

The Role of Big Tobacco and Chemical Industry Front Groups

In 2013, I wrote about the deceptive campaigns13 that led to the proliferation of fire retardant chemicals. Big Tobacco played a key role in this development. Flame retardant chemicals were developed in the 1970s, a time when 40 percent of Americans smoked and cigarettes were a major cause of house fires. The tobacco industry, under increasing pressure to make fire-safe cigarettes, resisted the push for self-extinguishing cigarettes and instead created an industry front group called the National Association of State Fire Marshals.

The group pushed for federal standards for fire retardant furniture and, in 1975, California became the first state to enact such fire standards (Technical Bulletin 117).

Related: Drinking Bottled Water Means Drinking Microplastics, According To Damning New Study

Another front group called Citizens for Fire Safety — which is actually a front group trade association for manufacturers of flame retardant chemicals, not a coalition of concerned citizens — has fought to protect the chemical industry from legislation that might cut into business, and has helped expand the commercial use of flame retardant chemicals into an ever-greater number of products besides furniture.

What’s worse, while the original fire standard specified that any chemical used had to be proven safe for human health, politicians removed this requirement, and the law went into effect without this requirement. The end result is now becoming increasingly obvious, as fire retardant chemicals are becoming an environmental pollutant of tremendous concern.

Firefighting Foam Is Contaminating Drinking Water

Sharon Lerner, a reporting fellow at The Investigative Fund and an investigative journalist for The Intercept and other major media outlets, has written extensively about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS14 (two of the most well-known ones of which are PFOA and PFOS) and the industry’s attempts to cover up the damage. At the time of this writing, The Intercept has published 16 parts of Lerner’s ongoing series,15 which began in 2015.

Part 1516 addresses the U.S. military’s affinity for toxic flame retardants, despite the fact that billions of dollars are now being spent trying to clean up drinking water contaminated by firefighting foam used on military installations. Setting the scene, Lerner writes, in part:

“About an hour north of Seattle at the northern edge of Puget Sound, Whidbey Island is quiet, forested, and, in Bob Farnsworth’s neighborhood, idyllic. In the 22 years he’s lived on Whidbey, where he served as a command master chief at the Naval Air Base, Farnsworth, 61, has regularly crabbed and fished for salmon and enjoyed fruit from his own trees …  

But last February, he discovered a toxic side to the Navy’s presence in his life: His well, which he had used to water his fruit trees, cook, and fill his children’s and grandchildren’s glasses over the years, tested positive for three chemicals that had apparently seeped in from foam used for firefighting on the base.

One chemical, PFOS, was present at 3,800 parts per trillion, more than 54 times a safety standard set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2016 … The realization that he and his wife had been exposed to the chemicals, which have been linked to prostate cancer and thyroid diseases, cast the struggles they have had over the past years with these very diseases in a new light. ‘I don’t know what was related,’ he said.”

Known Toxins Replaced With Lesser-Known Ones

A similar situation is playing out near hundreds of military bases around the U.S., where PFAS chemicals have leached through the ground, contaminating surrounding groundwater. In addition to prostate cancer and thyroid problems, these chemicals have been linked to other types of cancer as well, including kidney, testicular and bladder cancer, as well as immune dysfunction, reproductive problems and hormone disruption.

Considering the public health threat posed by PFAS contamination, courtesy of firefighting foam, you’d think the U.S. government would take proactive measures to eliminate the use of these toxic chemicals. After all, other countries are using PFAS-free firefighting foam, and it works just as well. Alas, this is not happening. Lerner explains:17

“[E]ven as the Army, Navy, and Air Force have begun the slow process of addressing the contamination, which is expected to cost upwards of $2 billion, the Department of Defense isn’t abandoning this line of chemicals. While some of the precise formulations that caused the contamination are off the table, the U.S. military is in the midst of an expensive effort to replace older foam with a newer formulation that contains only slightly tweaked versions of the same problematic compounds …

Some of the studies showing the dangers of these persistent chemicals came from the manufacturers themselves … The new foam contains no PFOS and ‘little or no PFOA,’ according to an Air Force press release.18 Instead, it uses the closely related molecules that pose many of the same dangers …”

Military Specifications Require Inclusion of Fluorinated Chemicals

As it turns out, the reason why one dangerous type of firefighting chemicals is simply replaced by another, very similar one, is because military specifications require the inclusion of fluorinated surfactants, which make the foam easier to spread. As explained by Lerner, the foam “creates a thin layer over the surface of the fuel that smothers the flames and prevents the release of vapor that could otherwise reignite.”

When, in the early 2000s, the EPA started urging the military to replace PFAS-containing firefighting foam due to health and environmental concerns, the foam and surfactant manufacturers created the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition — an organization aimed at defending the use of PFAS. DuPont and Dynax were among the founding members of this organization, which presented its case not only before military branches but also the EPA.

“Their messages were reassuring: The chemicals used to replace PFOS were safe for human health and the environment, and AFFF [aqueous film forming foam] was the only way to safely protect military personnel from fires,” Lerner writes. Meanwhile, evidence19suggests fluorinated surfactants, such as those used in AFFF, are “among the most environmentally persistent substances ever.”

In the end, the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition was successful in its attempts to get AFFF excluded from the EPA’s regulatory process, and the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force were free to continue using AFFF. Even when evidence emerged showing other PFAS were just as harmful as PFOA, the EPA never reassessed the military’s use of AFFF.

Are You Drinking PFAS-Contaminated Water?

As noted by Lerner, incomplete data makes it very difficult to ascertain how widespread the PFAS-contamination might be, but drinking water near at least 46 military installations in the U.S. have been found to contain PFOA and/or PFOS at levels exceeding 70 parts per trillion (ppt), which is the EPA’s health advisory level for drinking water.20 According to Lerner:

“Many more people are exposed to the chemicals at levels below that 70 ppt threshold. And, judging from the health-based levels that states have set since the EPA set its level last year, even these lower levels may pose health threats.

New Jersey is moving forward with setting 14 ppt as its drinking water standard for PFOA, just one-fifth of the EPA’s number, and recommended 13 ppt for PFOS. Vermont and Minnesota have either set or proposed safety levels for both chemicals that are lower than the EPA’s.

And in December, a Michigan state legislator proposed the lowest standard yet for PFAS molecules: 5 ppt. Historically, chemical safety thresholds tend to drop over time as research mounts.”

Health concerns are not limited to PFOA and PFOS though. Many other PFAS chemicals21 — such as PFHxS, PFHpA, PFBA and PFBS — have been detected both in drinking water and people’s blood, yet the military is only attempting to clean up PFOA and PFOS contamination. (In all, studies have found as many as 700 different PFAS compounds at sites where firefighting foam is used.)

The military also is not providing clean drinking water to residents in affected areas unless their water contains more than 70 ppt of PFOA and/or PFOS specifically. For example, Neal Sims, another resident of Whidbey Island, does not receive bottled water, even though the four PFAS found in his tap water total more than 80 ppt. The reason for this is because his combined PFOA/PFOS level is “only” 30 ppt.

Meanwhile, European regulators took action against PFHxS last year,22 and some U.S. states have already set levels for PFBA and PFBS in drinking water.23 Making matters worse, some of these shorter-chained replacement PFAS chemicals such as PFHxS are more difficult to filter out24 than PFOA and PFOS, requiring more frequent filter replacement to ensure they’re being removed.

According to the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition, PFAS-free foam has not been adopted by the defense industry for the fact that it doesn’t work as well as AFFF. However, the difference in performance is very small and, with practice, firefighters would likely be able to apply the material quicker to meet fire suppression specs.

Without EPA pressure to replace PFAS in firefighting foam, there’s also no sense of urgency to provide additional funding to find less toxic alternatives. Lobbying to keep the chemicals in play also slows down the process. And then there’s the fact that fluorine-free foams “cannot meet specifications” for the simple fact that the standard still requires the inclusion of fluorinated surfactants.

How to Reduce Your Exposure to Toxic Flame Retardants

While the Department of Defense needs to address its role in contaminating drinking water with toxic firefighting chemicals, there are some things you can do to protect yourself and your family. Most homes have many items that contain these hazardous class of chemicals, so water contamination is not your only potential threat. Among the basics: As you replace items around your home, select items that contain naturally less flammable materials, such as leather, wool and cotton.

Also look for organic and “green” building materials, carpeting, baby items and upholstery, which will be free from these toxic chemicals and help reduce your overall exposure. This is by far the easiest route, as manufacturers are not required to disclose the chemicals they use to make their products comply with fire safety regulations.

Your mattress, for example, may be soaked in toxic flame retardants, but you will not find the chemicals listed on the label. That said, below are some additional guidelines to consider that can help reduce your exposure to flame retardants:

•If you live anywhere near a military installation or fire department fire-training area, consider getting your tap water tested for PFAS and other toxic contaminants. Water testing is a prudent step no matter where you live these days, as is filtering your water, as there are literally hundreds of potential water contaminants that can harm your health.

•Polyurethane foam products manufactured prior to 2005, such as upholstered furniture, mattresses and pillows, are likely to contain PBDEs, another common class of fire retardant chemicals, so inspect them carefully and replace ripped covers and/or any foam that appears to be breaking down.

Also avoid reupholstering furniture by yourself as the reupholstering process increases your risk of exposure. If in doubt, you can have a sample of your polyurethane foam cushions tested for free by scientists at Duke University’s Superfund Research Center. This is particularly useful for items you already have around your home, as it will help you determine which harmful products need replacing.

Older carpet padding is another major source of flame-retardant PBDEs, so take precautions when removing old carpet. The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) guide25 to PBDEs contains even more details about products in which these toxic chemicals might be lurking.

•Your mattress may be of greatest concern since you spend a large amount of your life sleeping on it. Besides PBDEs, other flame-retardant chemicals currently approved for use in mattresses include boric acid, a toxic respiratory irritant used to kill roaches; antimony, a metal that may be more toxic than mercury; and formaldehyde, which causes cancer.

To avoid this toxic exposure, I recommend looking for a mattress made of either 100 percent organic wool, cotton or flannel (all of which tend to be naturally flame-resistant) or Kevlar fibers, the material they make bullet-proof vests out of, which is sufficient to pass the fire safety standards.

There are a number of good options on the market. I’ve also put together an assortment of wool and silk bedding, including organic cotton and wool mattresses you can choose from when it comes time to replace your mattress, pillows and comforters with chemical-free versions.

•You probably also have older sources of the PBDEs known as Deca in your home, and these are so toxic they are banned in several states. Deca PBDEs can be found in electronics like TVs, cellphones, kitchen appliances, fans, toner cartridges and more. It’s a good idea to wash your hands after handling such items, especially before eating, and at the very least be sure you don’t let infants mouth any of these items.

•PBDEs are often found in household dust, so clean up with a HEPA-filter vacuum and/or a wet mop often.

California To Fine Citizens Using Over 55 Gallons Of Water As Nestlé Pumps Billions Of Gallons For Free

California has become the first state to pass a law severely limiting the amount of water residents can use on a daily basis, and while politicians claim that the restrictions will be enforced in the name of conserving water, Nestlé is illegally stealing millions of gallons of water each year and the state is doing nothing to stop it.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668 into law, both of which set new standards for “water management planning.” The restrictions will fully take effect by 2022, limiting residents to 55 gallons of water per person, per day. That number will decrease to 50 gallons per person, per day, by 2030.

The bill would impose civil liability for a violation of an order or regulation issued pursuant to these provisions, as specified. The bill would also authorize the board to issue a regulation or informational order requiring a wholesale water supplier, urban retail water supplier, or distributor of a public water supply to provide a monthly report relating to water production, water use, or water conservation.

Related: Drinking Bottled Water Means Drinking Microplastics, According To Damning New Study

To put the allotted daily amount of water into perspective, a report from CBS Sacramento noted that “an 8-minute shower uses about 17 gallons of water, a load of laundry up to 40, and a bathtub can hold 80 to 100 gallons of water,” meaning that residents would have to give up showers on the days they wanted to wash one load of laundry, and taking a bath would be nearly impossible.

That is not to mention the fact that each time an individual flushes a toilet, up to 7 gallons of water is used, and around 6 gallons of water is needed for a full dishwasher cycle. If a family fails to budget how much water is being used by each child during the course of a day, or their home has a water leak they are unaware of, they could end up facing massive fines.

Residents will face fines if they fail to comply with the initial 55-gallon per day water limit, and water districts will be required to set targets for water use with outdoor water allowances based on the region. The Pacific Standard also noted that “beginning in 2027, districts that exceed their annual budgets will face fines of $10,000 per day.”

Residents told CBS Sacramento that they are concerned about the new regulations and whether they will be able to comply without giving up basic necessities. Tanya Allen, a mother who lives with her 4-year-old daughter, said, “With a child and every day having to wash clothes, that’s, just my opinion, not feasible. But I get it and I understand that we’re trying to preserve…but 55 gallons a day?”

While California residents prepare for a new crackdown on water usage that could cost them thousands of dollars in fines, it raises the question: Is California conserving water in all aspects, or are residents being forced to cut back while corporations have free reign, and the government fails to intervene?

In December 2017, The Free Thought Project reported that Nestlé has been illegally extracting more than 60 million gallons of water per year from California’s San Bernardino National Forest—which amounts to billions of gallons of water stolen over the last 68 years—even though it lacks the legal rights and has never provided a valid basis of right to the water.

The glaring misconduct was detailed in an investigation conducted by the California State Water Resources Control Board, which revealed that Nestlé reports “diversions under 11 groundwater records under the State Water Board’s Groundwater Recordation Program,” and from 1947 to 2015, Nestlé’s reported extractions “averaged 192 acre-feet, or 62.6 million gallons, per year.”

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Division of Water Rights (Division) received several water rights complaints against Nestlé Waters North America (Nestlé or NWNA), starting on April 20, 2015. The complaint allegations included diversion of water without a valid basis of right, unreasonable use of water, injury to public trust resources, and incorrect or missing reporting, all regarding Nestlé’s diversion of water from springs at the headwaters of Strawberry Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) for bottling under the Arrowhead label. Many of the complainants emphasized their concerns about the impacts of Nestlé’s diversions during California’s recent historic drought.

Multiple complaints have been filed against the corporation, and even after an investigation by a state agency revealed that billions of gallons of water have been stolen over the last 70 years, no one has been charged for their role in the illegal scheme, and Nestlé continues to steal the drought-stricken state’s most precious resource.

As is typically the case when big government turns a blind eye to the corrupt actions of big corporations, the residents of California—who are forced to fund their government through taxes—are the ones who suffer from the lack of water. At the same time, the new regulations that are being put in place in the name of conserving water are actually the latest cover-up to shield both the state and the corporations it is protecting from any form of legitimate accountability.

Rachel Blevins is an independent journalist from Texas, who aspires to break the false left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. Follow Rachel on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Steemit and Patreon. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

Coca-Cola Admits Its Dasani Bottled Water May Be Contaminated With Plastic

This week, a study of eleven popular water bottle brands revealed microplastics are pervasive in packaging around the world. Though this may be unsurprising considering the widespread use of plastics, Coca-Cola admitted the possibility that their water products contain synthetic materials.

The research was commissioned by Orb Media, a non-profit journalistic organization, and conducted by researchers at the State University of New York. International brands tested included Nestlé Pure Life, Evian, San Pellegrino, Dasani (owned by Coca-Cola), and Aquafina (owned by Pepsi), and overall, the results indicated there were microplastics in 93 percent of the bottles tested.

Nestlé clocked the highest rate of microplastics per liter, with a high of 10,390 particles per liter (ppl). By comparison, the average for all brands tested was 325 ppl. Dasani aligned with the average, coming in at 335 ppl. Aquafina was at 1,295 while Evian and San Pellegrino had smaller amounts than the average (256 and 75, respectively). National brands had significant rates, including Aqua of Indonesia (4,713), Bisleri of India (5,230), and Epura of Mexico (2,267).

Related:  How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

Of the 259 bottles tested from 19 locations in nine countries, only 17 were entirely free of microplastics.

Though Nestlé had the highest rate of plastics, the company disputed the findings. In a statement to the BBC, they said “its own internal testing for microplastics began more than two years ago and had not detected any ‘above trace level,’” the outlet reported. “A spokesman added that Prof Mason’s study missed key steps to avoid ‘false positives’ but he invited Orb Media to compare methods.”

Despite Nestlé’s skepticism of the results and the valid caveat that the study has not been peer-reviewed, Andrew Mayes, a senior lecturer in chemistry at the University of East Anglia — and the developer of the Nile Red method the researchers employed —  generally approved of the methods.“This is pretty substantial,” he said. “I’ve looked in some detail at the finer points of the way the work was done, and I’m satisfied that it has been applied carefully and appropriately, in a way that I would have done it in my lab.”

Related: Drinking Bottled Water Means Drinking Microplastics, According To Damning New Study

Coca-Cola seemed more willing to admit the possibility that microplastics are widespread in water — even in their own product. As the BBC noted, the company “said it had some of the most stringent quality standards in the industry and used a ‘multi-step filtration process.’” But it, too, acknowledged that microplastics “appear to be ubiquitous and therefore may be found at minute levels even in highly treated products.’”

Like Nestlé, Pepsi appeared to shirk the issue. They cited “rigorous quality control measures sanitary manufacturing practices, filtration and other food safety mechanisms which yield a reliably safe product.” They described the study of microplastics as  “an emerging field, in its infancy, which requires further scientific analysis, peer-reviewed research and greater collaboration across many stakeholders.”

This is true, at least to some extent. Experts are not sure that microplastics can cause harm to human health. According to Bruce Gordon, coordinator of the WHO’s global work on water and sanitation:

When we think about the composition of the plastic, whether there might be toxins in it, to what extent they might carry harmful constituents, what actually the particles might do in the body – there’s just not the research there to tell us.

The findings published by ORB have prompted a WHO investigation, though Gordon continued:

We normally have a ‘safe’ limit but to have a safe limit, to define that, we need to understand if these things are dangerous, and if they occur in water at concentrations that are dangerous.

According to Sherri Mason, who oversaw the research:

What we do know is that some of these particles are big enough that, once ingested, they are probably excreted but along the way they can release chemicals that cause known human health impacts.

Some of these particles are so incredibly small that they can actually make their way across the gastro-intestinal tract, across the lining and be carried throughout the body, and we don’t know the implications of what that means on our various organs and tissues.

Though the health consequences are still unclear, Orb’s findings further highlight the ramifications of unmitigated plastic use. As Mason said of the recent water bottle findings:

We found [plastic] in bottle after bottle and brand after brand.

It’s not about pointing fingers at particular brands; it’s really showing that this is everywhere, that plastic has become such a pervasive material in our society, and it’s pervading water – all of these products that we consume at a very basic level.

An analysis conducted last year, also commissioned by Orb, found microplastics are present in tap water from over a dozen countries. They are also widespread in oceans around the world.

Scientists Discover Frightening Amount Of Plastic Fibers In Drinking Water Environment

(True Activist) Researchers all over the world are discovering micro plastic particles in drinking water. Studies from a dozen countries reported plastic fibers in 83% of tap water samples. The United States had the highest number of contaminated samples, with 94% showing the presence of plastic particles.

“Microplastics have been shown to absorb toxic chemicals linked to cancer and other illnesses, and then release them when consumed by fish and mammals,” said Orb Media. Plastic is beyond ubiquitous, and furthermore, it can never biodegrade, it can only be broken down into smaller and smaller pieces.

How plastic gets into the air, water and food is frightening and unavoidable. Car tires release plastic particles during abrasion, synthetic fabrics shed thousands of particles in the washer and dryer, among countless other sources.

These plastics can attract bacteria and become carriers of diseases. According to Dr. Anne Marie Mahon at the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, “Some studies have shown there are more harmful pathogens on micro plastics downstream of wastewater treatment plants.”

Water treatment systems cannot filter out all plastic fibers because they are so small.

These nanoparticles of plastic have been shown to travel through the walls of the intestine, ending up in the lymph nodes, lungs, and other organs. Plastic was also found in samples of commercially bottled water in the United States, as well as bottled beer in Germany.

“We are increasingly smothering ecosystems in plastic and I am very worried that there may be all kinds of unintended, adverse consequences that we will only find out about once it is too late,” said Prof Roland Geyer, from the University of California in Santa Barbara, reporting that 300m tonnes of plastic are produced annually and only 20% is recycled or incinerated.

Related Reading:

Fluoridated Water Destroys Your Brain and Teeth

(Mercola.com – Dr. Mercola) In the U.S., water fluoridation has been widespread for the last 70 years. Despite the fact that clear-cut evidence suggests consuming fluoride is dangerous to human health and does little to protect teeth from cavities, it continues to be supported and recommended by nearly all public health and academic institutions.

This includes the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, U.S. Public Health Service and the World Health Organization (WHO). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) even went so far as to name water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.

Meanwhile, the evidence continues to stack up against this archaic practice, with federal data now showing more than half of U.S. kids may be suffering ill effects from consuming too much fluoride.

Most US Kids Have Fluoride-Damaged Teeth

According to research presented at the April 2017 National Oral Health Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 57 percent of youth between the ages of 6 and 19 years have dental fluorosis, a condition in which your tooth enamel becomes progressively discolored and mottled, according to data from 2011 to 2012.1

The statistic represents an increase from 37 percent reported from 1999 to 2004. Further, the author stated, “There was a significant increase in caries experience …” When Fluoride Action Network (FAN) researchers analyzed the same set of data, they found “The 2011 to 2012 NHANES survey found dental fluorosis in 58.3 percent of the surveyed adolescents, including an astonishing 21.2 percent with moderate fluorosis and 2 percent with severe.”2

According to FAN, “The data suggests that up to 24 million adolescents now have some form of dental fluorosis, with over 8 million adolescents having moderate fluorosis, and 840,000 having severe fluorosis.”

In stark contrast, when fluoridation was first started in the U.S. in 1945, it was promised that only 10 percent of people would suffer from mild dental fluorosis.3 Public health officials often brush off fluorosis as a purely aesthetic issue, one they believe is a good trade-off for the supposed benefits of fluoride but, in reality, fluorosis is an outward sign that fluoride is damaging the body.

Research has found impairment in cognitive abilities among children with fluorosis (even mild fluorosis) compared to children with no fluorosis. And some studies have even found that children with higher levels of fluorosis have increased rates of cavities.4,5

US Lowered Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water, but Risks Still Remain

With all the fanfare over water fluoridation, you may be surprised to learn that in 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to lower the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in 50 years. This meant the level of fluoride in drinking water was reduced to 0.7 mg/L from a previously recommended range of between 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L.

This was a significant reduction in fluoride exposure for some U.S. communities, but it’s important to understand that at doses ranging from 0.7 to 2.3 mg/L of fluoride per day, adverse effects including reduced IQ, behavioral alterations, neurochemical changes, hypothyroidism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been demonstrated.

Also noteworthy, reduced IQ has been seen in study participants with higher urinary fluoride concentrations, even when no dental fluorosis was present, which suggests that the doses of fluoride that impair cognitive ability are lower than those that cause severe dental fluorosis.6

FAN is among a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the addition of fluoride to public drinking water supplies.

In a petition toward this end, they highlighted several other studies that also demonstrated “fluoride’s ability to cause neurotoxic effects at low levels,” including one that found just 0.5 uM of fluoride (.009 mg/L) caused lipid peroxidation after 48 hours of exposure. “Most individuals living in fluoridated areas in the United States have fluoride levels in their blood that exceed this level,” they wrote.

National Cancer Institute Researcher Warned Against Fluoride in the 1960s

Chemist Dean Burk, Ph.D., co-founded the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1937 and headed its cytochemistry department for over 30 years. In the taped interview, he equates water fluoridation to “public murder,”7 referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it.

The study clearly demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. This and other studies linking fluoride to cancer were government-ordered but were quickly buried once fluoride was found to be linked to dramatic increases in cancer.

Since then, a 2012 study found a link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer.8 A 2006 study also found a link between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among men.9 Such a link is biologically plausible, according to FAN, because of the following:10

“The plausibility of a fluoride/osteosarcoma connection is grounded in the three considerations:

  1. Bone is the principal site of fluoride accumulation, particularly during the growth spurts of childhood;
  2. Fluoride is a mutagen when present at sufficient concentrations; and
  3. Fluoride stimulates the proliferation of bone-forming cells (osteoblasts), which may increase the risk for some of the dividing cells to become malignant.”

In addition, the inhalation of airborne fluoride has been found to be a potential cause of bladder cancer and lung cancer among fluoride-exposed workers.11

‘If It’s Not Effective, Why Do It?’

Retired journalist Jack Crowther of Rutland, Vermont, wrote an opinion piece for news outlet VT Digger that brings up a very important point: “Regardless of the other objections to fluoridation, if it’s not effective, why do it?”12

He presents graphs of data prepared by FAN showing that tooth decay in countries that fluoridate most or some of their water (or salt) has been on the decline from 1970 to 2010. Likewise, another graph shows that tooth decay has also been on decline in countries with no water (or salt) fluoridation during the same period, including Italy, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Norway and Belgium.

If you’re surprised that so many countries do not fluoridate their water, you should know that the U.S. is in the minority when it comes to water fluoridation. In fact, the vast majority (97 percent) of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, whereas in the U.S. 200 million Americans live in areas where water is fluoridated.

Tooth decay in 12-year-olds is coming down as fast, if not faster, in nonfluoridated countries as it is in fluoridated countries. In one Lithuanian study, for instance, it was shown that dental caries did not vary according to the level of fluoride in the water.

Regardless of the concentration of fluoride in the drinking water, the prevalence of past and present caries was high,” the researchers noted,13 showing once again that subjecting entire populations to a form of mass medication without informed consent is highly questionable and dangerous, especially considering its unnecessary and ineffective.

Leading Fluoride Supporter Changed His Position When Confronted With the Evidence

Crowther also features data from the late New Zealand dentist John Colquhoun, who was a leading fluoridation supporter until he delved into the research in 1980.

His international tour showed no difference between rates of tooth decay in the nonfluoridated versus fluoridated areas he visited, causing him to change his position and become a fluoridation opponent. “For the remainder of his life, Colquhoun sought to end fluoridation, a program he had helped create,” Crowther said.14 An interview with Colquhoun is above and well worth watching. FAN added:15

The most obvious reason to end fluoridation is that it is now known that fluoride’s main benefit comes from topical contact with the teeth, not from ingestion. Even the CDC’s Oral Health Division now acknowledges this.

There is simply no need, therefore, to swallow fluoride, whether in the water, toothpaste or any other form. Further, despite early claims that fluoridated water would reduce cavities by 65 percent, modern large-scale studies show no consistent or meaningful difference in the cavity rates of fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.”

Fortunately, the word that fluoridation is not a suitable means for keeping teeth healthy is spreading, including in Meadville, Pennsylvania. The city was considering adding fluoride to their water, necessitating a fluoride forum held May 4, 2017.

Fourteen speakers spoke in opposition of fluoridation while 11 spoke in favor of it, trying to sway the Meadville Area Water Authority board’s decision. Board member Hal Tubbs, who voted against fluoridation, pointed out that most of those in favor were affiliated with the pro-fluoridation Meadville Smiles group, leaving only perhaps one independent voice.

This tells me that actual customers are against fluoridated water by a count of 14 to one,” Tubbs wrote in an email to The Meadville Tribune. “What I took away from the presentation is that our customers want to decide and control what they put into their bodies … They don’t want a fluoride additive forced on them.”16

Protecting Your Oral Health Has Nothing to Do With Fluoride

When it comes to good oral hygiene and preventing cavities, please remember, drinking fluoridated water and brushing your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste is not the answer. Rather, it’s about your diet and proper dental care: brushing and flossing. By avoiding sugars and processed foods, you prevent the proliferation of the bacteria that cause decay in the first place.

Following up with proper brushing and flossing and getting regular cleanings with a mercury-free biological dentist will ensure that your teeth and gums stay healthy naturally.

Your toothbrush and natural fluoride-free toothpaste are important, but don’t be misled by thinking they’re the only options for sound dental health. Many natural substances, like the foods you eat, also have the power to drastically improve the health of your teeth and gums, and thereby the health of the rest of your body, too.

Recommendations released by The University of Calgary School of Public Policy championed the use of prevention and education to prevent early childhood cavities, noting water fluoridation wouldn’t be needed if such measures were effectively practiced.

The paper’s authors even pointed out that water fluoridation is not preventing tooth decay, as areas with water fluoridation still have a high rate of early childhood cavities. The recommendations call for increased education for parents on the importance of proper feeding and dental hygiene for infants, as well as for health care professionals to discuss these issues with patients.17

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to the CDC, 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why? The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place.

Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and visit the links below:

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Recommended Reading: