- 15 May 13
In a startling development in the fluoridation debate, the union representing 1,500 employees of the US EPA has revealed why they insist of access to fluoride free water for EPA employees...
Scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States have issued a clear statement why they are opposed to the mandatory fluoridation of water.
In a statement which will shock those who have read the defence of fluoridation policy by the Junior Minister responsible for fluoridation policy, Alex White, published in the current issue Hot Press, the scientists reveal that they have insisted on having access to non-fluoridated water at their own place of work in Washington DC.
The letter is headlined "Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Oppose Fluoridation" and begins by explaining that the Union comprises and represents 1,500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA headquarters.
"Our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown," the letter states, "based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis."
This statement contrasts dramatically with claims made in the Minister's response, published in full in Hot Press (The National on the cover), which claims that dental fluorosis is the only known side-efferct of the ingestion of fluoride.
The letter from EPA employees goes on to detail the many reasons to oppose the policy of mandatory fluoridation – and in the process smashes the attempts which have been made, consistently and on an ongoing basis, by representatives of the Department of Health and the Irish Expert Group on Fluoride and Health, to portray opponents of fluoridation as marginal figures at best and as crackpots and obsessives at worst.
Having set out the data, across a range of negative impacts which have been analysed, the letter concludes: "The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry."
The latter, of course, is a reference to fluoride.
To read the full text, click here: