Access to all articles, new health classes, discounts in our store, and more!
We are now entering the second stage of the furor for the fluoridation of public drinking water. This stage might well be devoted to sober reflection and reconsideration.
You will recall that the unanimous Report of the Delaney Select Committee (July 10, 1952, Rep. No. 2500, 82nd Cong. 2d Sess., Union Calendar No. 787) recommended, in substance, a conservative attitude with regard to fluoridation, pending the continuance and completion of scientific research projects and investigations to determine the physical effects of drinking fluoridated water by the sick child, by the adult who has a chronic ailment, and by children and adults generally.
Despite the obvious soundness of the findings of the Committee and the wisdom of its recommendations, all too frequently the issue of fluoridation has been decided upon the basis of the emotional reaction of the parents of small children to the extravagant claims and assurances of zealous advocates of fluoridation, many of whom, in the language of the Hon. A. L. Miller of the Committee, had “done no original research work themselves” and were “merely parroting each other’s opinion.” In this emotional atmosphere, no serious thought was given to the grave possibility of disastrous consequences to the parents themselves, to their elders or, ultimately, to the very children whom they sought to benefit. Under this pressure of popular enthusiasm, the local authorities could give little, if any, consideration to the complete absence of scientific data and such matters as civil rights, penal statutes, or civil or criminal responsibilities.
As we have stated, we now enter the second stage, in which we may expect to receive the reports of the scientific investigations of the consequences of drinking fluoridated water about which the Delaney Select Committee had its doubts and misgivings.
Witness the first of these reports!–
In the Journal of Gerontology of January, 1957, is a report by Dr. Clive McCay and associates of Cornell University to the effect that one part per million of sodium fluoride in water fed to rats causes:
- Kidney Damage. Found in all animals getting 1 p.p.m. or over Sodium Fluoride as shown by renal tubule hypertrophy and hyperplasia, but not in the animals getting no fluoride. This kidney damage was most apparent in the older animals and in proportion to the amount of Sodium Fluoride in the water. (Levels of 1, 5, and 10 P.P.M. were used.) Half the animals were killed at 150 days of age, half at 520 days. (Old for the rat.)
- Dental Disease. “No evidence of injury to the teeth was found in the animals killed at 150 days of age, but marked injury was noted in those given Sodium Fluoride supplementation until they were 520 days old. In old age, missing teeth and periodontal disease were frequent in rats which had received Sodium Fluoride supplementation…” (whether 1, 5, or 10 p.p.m.).
Here is the first authentic and reliable test of the effects of such use of Sodium Fluoride to be reported. Until these findings are conclusively disproved (which seems unlikely), they must stand as a warning against the continuance of fluoridation. They clearly demonstrate the possibility of disastrous consequences through continued reliance upon the unproved opinions of pseudo-experts, persuasive propaganda and skillfully cultivated popular enthusiasm. They serve to place again before the public authorities the serious doubts as to the wisdom, the propriety and the lawfulness of fluoridation of public water and companion questions as to their duties and responsibilities in the matter.
We again urge the careful study of the Delaney report and direct your attention specifically to the following conclusion:
“It is essential, therefore, that all the facts concerning fluoridation be disseminated, and an opportunity given the people of each community to decide for themselves whether they desire to assume, at this time, the calculated risk in the program.”
The introduction of the practice of water fluoridation was a violation of the primary principle relating to the use of poisons in food laid down by Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, the father of our Federal Pure Food Law. He said all poisons must be considered harmful in proportion to dosage, with no safe tolerance to be considered for small degrees of contamination. He pointed out the danger of the continual propaganda by commercial interests who, in furthering their profits at the expense of the public health, were able frequently to mobilize a great volume of specious evidence to support their nefarious schemes. It appears we have here a colossal example of this type of crooked manipulation of facts and principles in which our professional societies, our Federal and State public health organizations have been coerced, intimidated, and politically influenced to depart from known safe practises to promote a frightful scheme of mass poisoning of the public, in which a totally conscienceless profit motive must be the incentive, unless we take the view that many do–that it is Communist inspired.
Dr. McCay’s findings completely justify the stand taken by Dr. Wiley, whose attempt to honestly enforce the Federal Pure Food Law resulted in his elimination from the Washington scene. After this he wrote the book–later suppressed–The History of a Crime Against the Food Law, showing how crooked and illegal regulations nullified the intent of the law and in Dr. Wiley’s words “violated every decision of the courts”; and as a result “The dikes that held the swelling floods of adulterations and misbranding of our beverages were broken down and waves of food adulterations swept over and devastated the country” (Page 150-151). Others who have tried to expose the corrupt situation in which the people were being victimized by vicious food adulteration have been smeared, prosecuted, and convicted of false crimes, even receiving jail sentences. (Ask me for data on the Irons and Duon Miller cases for examples.)
Another consideration noted by Dr. Wiley in his book is pertinent here. He said younger subjects were more resistant to food contaminated with poisons (Page 234). To get accurate evidence as to the possible harm of any poisoned food or water would require at least the life span of one generation, if scientific accuracy were to be required. A congressional investigation should be in order to determine the responsibility for our whole situation of food adulteration, including the fluoridation conspiracy, with the suppressed revelations of Dr. Wiley as a starting point.
This view propounds the question: Do the people of your community desire to assume the risks demonstrated by the findings of Dr. McCay and his associates?
Do you as the administrator, lawmaker, or executive of a public water supply realize your responsibility in continuing the fluoridation of the public water supply now that the use of one part per million of Sodium Fluoride has been proved poisonous to test animals?
Are you aware of the fact that you may be both criminally and civilly liable for any damage to health of any person in your jurisdiction drinking fluoridated water? For an example, please read the attached report of poisoning from fluoridated water which resulted in a suit for recovery of damages from the water supplier. With Dr. McCay’s evidence, just how could you defend such a suit? How could you defend, in principle, the addition of any known poison to water–proved here to be poison still in the dilution of one part per million?
Very truly yours,
Royal Lee, D.D.S.