 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public Health Community Upset by Questions about
Fluosilicic Acid |
|
|
Fluoride Action Network September 2, 2000 Public Health Community Upset by Questions about Fluosilicic Acid Over the past few months there has been an increasing number of questions put forth to the public health community concerning fluosilicic acid. Fluosilicic acid is the substance derived from the pollution scrubbing devices of the superphosphate fertilizer industry, 70 to 75% of which comes from the Cargill fertilizer corporation. But what, one might ask, does this fluosilicic acid have to do with public health? Fluosilicic acid, which is a classified hazardous waste, is the substance used in 90% of the water fluoridation programs in the United States. This fact has raised concern amongst health risk assessment scientists at the EPA who have helped draw attention to the fact that the only other place this fluosilicic acid can legally be disposed of is in a hazardous waste facility. As Dr. William Hirzy, Senior Vice President of the EPA's Professionals Headquarters Union, put it, "if this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing!" (1). Amazing, but true. Due to the obviously intriguing aspect of this "waste disposal policy", there has naturally been quite a bit of curiosity concerning the safety of this public health practice. Apparently, however, there are no government safety studies currently available on fluosilicic acid. This is because the government is basing their fluoridation policy on the assumption that there is no chemical difference, after dilution into the water supply, between pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride and the industrial grade hydrofluosilicic acid. However, results from a recent study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Studies, does not support this assumption. The authors found significantly higher lead levels in the blood of children living in communities where fluosilicic acid was added to the water (2). Along with the possibility that children ingesting fluosilicic acid may be absorbing more lead, one other troubling aspect of the fluosilicic acid issue has been the unwillingness of the public health pro-fluoridation community to openly discuss it. Jane Jones, Campaign Organizer for England's National Pure Water Association, has written several letters to no avail to Dr. Michael Easley, Director, National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research; Thomas Reeves, National Fluoridation Engineer for the CDC; and Dr G. Pakhomov, Responsible Officer of the World Health Organization's Oral Health Programme. In her letters, Jones asked for responses to the following two questions.
However, after several months and repeated requests, Jones has not recieved any answers to either of her questions. The lack of response to Jones' request has created more interest among activists, in fluosilicic acid. Recently, however, instead of ignoring the issue, the dental health community has become increasingly critical of those asking questions about it. When a Maryland citizen raised concerns about fluosilicic acid, he got this response from the Special Events Director, Dr. Teran Gall, of the California Dental Association (August 23, 00).
While proponents of fluoridation certainly have
the right to believe that fluosilicic acid is perfectly safe for
long term human consumption, it is the Fluoride Action Network's
position that they should back their belief up, not with denial
and citizen intimidation, but with evidence-based reasoning. Considering
that they are public health officials, this is particulary
important.
However, the dental public health community seems to view such questions about fluosilicic acid, not as legitimate questions concerning public health policy, but as unacceptable affronts to a policy they enthusiastically endorse. The most recent example of this rejection of citizen concern comes from Mark Greer (August 31, 00), an official from the State of Hawaii's Department of Health. Greer got quite distraught by a recent question that asked what studies existed to prove that fluosilicic acid at 1 part per million in the water supply is safe. The question, put forth on a dental public health listserve, by Peter Meiers, got a quick reply from Greer who urged all fellow listserve members not to reply to Meiers' request. Greer's reasoning behind rejecting Meier's request was that Meiers is an opponent of fluoridation, and thus he may use any responses to further his anti-fluoridation agenda. What's difficult to understand about Greer's response, is that one would assume that it would be to Greer's and other proponents' advantage to respond to Meiers and provide him with a detailed response as to why there is no scientific reason to be concerned about fluosilicic acid. If Greer or others were to do this, then to what advantage would it be to Meiers to showcase their response? If, for instance, the Fluoride Action Network received a question from the American Dental Association asking why we feel it is not wise policy to put fluosilicic acid in the water, we wouldn't be disturbed by the idea that our response was going to fluoridation proponents. We would, instead, be encouraged that our concerns would get better distribution. Why Greer and his colleagues do not want to publicly distribute the rationale underpinning their support for adding an industrial waste product to the public water supply is disturbing. The lack of transparency here is an issue of concern. As Meiers put it, "I just wanted to know whether people on the Dental Public Health Listserv, a communication forum of the American Association of Public Health Dentists (AAPHD), are aware of any studies attesting to the safety of fluosilicic acid as used for fluoridation of public drinking water. Instead of even a simple reply like 'there are a lot', or at least 'there´s no report of harm from anywhere', Greer sent a 'CAUTION TO ALL !!!!!', warning the listserv members of a 'BLATANT ATTEMPT TO ABUSE THE LISTSERV AND ITS MEMBERS.'" The Fluoride Action Network has reprinted the email exchange, to which Meiers' refers, below. References: 1) Hirzy, William, J. Video interview with Michael Connett. July 3, 2000. 2) Masters, R.D. and Coplan, M. (1999). "Water treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity" International Journal of Environmental Studies. September. Subject: Fluosilicic
acid Subject: CAUTION
TO ALL !!!!!! Re: Fluosilicic acid Mark Subject: Re:
CAUTION TO ALL !!!!!! Re: Fluosilicic acid Subject: GET
A LIFE |
Fluoride Action Network | 802-338-5577 | info@fluoridealert.org |