A federal court has denied an attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to ban the use of fluoride under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
In a victory for water fluoridation opponents, a judge in the Northern District of California has denied a motion by the Environmental Protection Agency that sought to limit the information available to the court while making their decision on whether or not to ban water fluoridation. The lawsuit was brought forth by Food and Water Watch Inc. and a coalition of health organizations and individuals concerned about fluoride. Under section 21 of The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) citizens are allowed to petition the EPA to regulate or ban individual chemicals. Food and Water Watch filed the lawsuit after the EPA rejected a citizen petition calling for the EPA to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals to the drinking water supply.
As the lawsuit proceeded the EPA interpreted the language of the law to mean the judge should be limited to reviewing the information the EPA provided when it decided to reject the petition on February 17, 2017. “The disagreement is whether, in reaching its own decision, the court can consider information that the EPA did not have access to e.g. expert testimony, new studies, documents obtained in discovery, etc.,” Michael Connett, the attorney representing the coalition told Bloomberg Environment before the ruling.
National Law Review reported on the ruling:
In denying the EPA’s motion, the court specifically held that the phrase “de novo proceeding” indicates that Congress intended a broad scope of review because the word “proceeding” encompasses all regular activities of a lawsuit, including discovery beyond the administrative record. Because the purpose of the TSCA is to protect the public from chemicals that pose unreasonable risks to health and the environment, the court held that “[a] de novo proceeding in district court modeled after traditional trial-like proceedings would not conflict with the purpose of the TSCA, but would instead effectuate it.”The court’s ruling means that the trial will now have larger implications for the legality of water fluoridation. If the coalition of fluoride opponents is successful in their lawsuit, the EPA may be forced to reconsider the petition to ban water fluoridation.
What is Fluoride?
The substances added to municipal water supplies known by the name fluoride are actually a combination of unpurified byproducts of phosphate mining. In the United States thousands of tons of fluorosilicic acid is recovered from phosphoric acid plants and then used for water fluoridation. During this process the fluoride ion is created.
This process of taking waste from the phosphate industry and putting it into drinking water has long been criticized for its effects on human health and the environment. It is well known that water fluoridation has led to dental fluorosis for millions of children. This discoloring of the teeth was called “cosmetically objectionable” by the Centers for Disease Control.
Beyond the cosmetic effect there have been several studies indicating overwhelming health issues related to fluoride, especially for children. Another study found a connection between exposure to water fluoridated at relatively low concentrations and a reduced IQ among children.
As recent as September 2017 the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published the study “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico,” examining the results of prenatal exposure to fluoride and the potential health concerns. The researchers called the study “one of the first and largest longitudinal epidemiological studies to exist that either address the association of early life exposure to fluoride to childhood intelligence or study the association of fluoride and cognition using individual biomarker of fluoride exposure.” The study was funded in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
The researchers found that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with lower scores on tests for cognitive function at age four, and between ages six and twelve. The researchers acknowledge that their results are “somewhat consistent” with past ecological studies which indicate children living in areas of high fluoride exposure have lower IQ scores than those in low-exposure areas.
A study published in the journal General Dentistry warns that infants are at risk of dental fluorosis due to overexposure from fluoride in commercially available infant foods. The researchers analyzed 360 different samples of 20 different foods ranging from fruits and vegetables, chicken, turkey, beef, and vegetarian dinners. Chicken products had the highest concentrations of fluoride, followed by turkey. The New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF) reports that the fluoride levels were due to pesticides, fertilizers, soil, groundwater, and/or fluoridated water. The high levels found in the chicken and turkey can be attributed to “fluoride-saturated bone dust” involved in the process of mechanically separating the meat.
Another study published in Environmental Health found a potential connection between fluoride exposure and the prevalence of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. The researchers studied data on ADHD among children age four to seventeen collected in 2003, 2007 and 2011 as part of the National Survey of Children’s Health, as well as state water fluoridation data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collected between 1992 and 2008 . It is the first study to analyze the relationship between exposure to fluoridated water and ADHD prevalence.
The team discovered that children living in areas with a majority of the population receiving fluoridated water from public water systems “tended to have a greater proportion of children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. ” The researchers concluded that:
this study has empirically demonstrated an association between more widespread exposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence in U.S. children and adolescents, even after controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). The findings suggest that fluoridated water may be an environmental risk factor for ADHD.
Previous studies have shown rats exposed to fluoride chemicals also exhibit ADHD-like symptoms.
In addition to these studies related to fluoride and children, dozens of other studies have indicated a variety of health problems. A recent study published in the Journal of Analytical Chemistry indicates that fluoride ions found in fluoridated water and toothpaste may lead to an increase in Urinary Stone Disease (USD). The study was conducted by chemists from Russia and Australia, led by Pavel Nesterenko at the University of Tasmania. The team studied 20 urinary stones from patients at a Russian hospital and discovered fluoride ions in 80% of the stones. This could be due to high levels of fluoride in patients’ urine, possibly from drinking water containing fluorides and ingesting fluoride toothpaste.
A study published in the BMJ’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health confirmed fluoride’s negative effect on the thyroid gland and a possible connection to depression, weight gain, and other negative health effects. Researchers with the University of Kent in England examined thyroid activity for those in areas with fluoridated water and those without. The team examined 95 percent of the English population in 2012 and 2013 and found that high rates of underactive thyroid were 30% more likely in areas with high fluoride concentration. An underactive thyroid can lead to depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles.
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
Donate via:
Bitcoin: 16fDdrZvt9XUv7TyboSYtaHfcxMb22Yiew
Ethereum: 0x8d20b442de44C28467b3d66939ff3077F9CfCb24
DASH: XbPpwz1ZvtkTeik1y3wDgrHRJTEst564XH
I am always available for interviews, Please contact Derrick@theconsciousresistance.com
I greatly appreciate any support here or on my other social media:
| YouTube | Facebook |
The benefit is improved dental resistance to cavities. There are many studies which support this and show that the trace amount of fluoride in the water is not harmful. This practice has been going on for decades and communities continue to support the benefits.
I grew up with it. So did my friends and family. My children also drink fluoridated water. My dentists have always supported it and they often talk about the research. And consider the toothpaste you use like has thousands of times the concentration as well.
The warning on fluoridated toothpaste says "Call poison control if ingested" Kind of a GIANT flag there.
I believe that dental benefits was touted in the 70's when mass flouridation of water treatment was underway. However, this theory has since been disproved I believe by the same professors of a Canadian University who has since warned of the dangers. Fluoride is dangerous to humans especially young children.
The claims of benefits in dental health are for topical use of fluoride, as in toothpaste or the trays full of it that they have kids sit with for a few minutes (warning them carefully not to swallow), not internal use.
There are many studies, linked above and in articles linked above, which show the many, many dangers of water fluoridation as well.
Great news! This has always been a fight that is near and dear to me. Its good to see some big action on a federal level.
Sodium chloride is a by product of Aluminum production, and when added to water treatment plants forms calcification around the pineal gland. Another reason to avoid Aluminum pots and IMHO people should be very wary of Aluminum products. By blocking and messing up the human pineal glands has untold effects on people especially regarding intuitive consciousness abilities.
Reading this post has given me some hope that we can fix the mess and destruction of planet Earth and heal the human family. This post needs to go viral to raise as much awareness as possible so thanks for sharing!
Ty for posting this. This is a subject that is passionately debated in my hometown currently.
I live in Canada and I grew up in a little village in the country. Our water supply came from a well that fed a cistern that supplied the town with water. The town water was chlorinated but that was it, no fluoride. I'm assuming it was because leaving fluoridation up to some guy that volunteered on town council would have been too dangerous. The so called safe fluoridation levels are such small concentrations that it would be really easy to poison everyone that drinks the water.
To make sure everyone got their fluoride, the local health unit (free public health service) would distribute little bottles of diluted fluoride through the mail. They would tell you to have your children drink a glass of water with a certain number of drops in it once a day. The number of drops depended on the weight or age of the child. I forget what it was.
We rarely did it. Sometimes we would do it right when the drops first came but mostly the drops would get put aside and forgotten about.
I'm glad I didn't grow up in a larger town with fluoridated water out of the tap. I always wondered if the dose was so critical using the drops, how did they regulate the fluoride in town where everyone drinks as much as they want? It always seemed weird to me.
exactly. There is no way to regulate the amount of fluoride that an individual takes in. As you mentioned, there are many sources of fluoride intake - the soil, within certain foods and other substances, and the water.
I understand that correlation is not causality but people who live in areas with non fluoridated water have less tooth decay than those in fluoridated areas.
They should thoroughly think and investigate about it before they ban anything. I hate to say this but sometimes, it seems that courts don't know what they are doing.
I hope they take their time too, Flouride has been in our water for many years anyway. That should mean tons of data to use to get an accurate indicator of the dangers (if any). Much better idea to use some analytics than just a knee jerk banning.
read the whole article and the studies I referenced. There is plenty of evidence showing the dangers of fluoride and that it does not deliver what the authorities have promised.
Man these people are so asleep lol, how could you read this article and still defend fluoride in our water? You know mining waste is toxic, how could you want that for your children? What the fuck is the world man
Has to be shills. I haven't met a sane man who is in favor of dumping toxic waste into drinking water.
Generally those findings are in areas where the Flouride concentration greatly exceeds the recommended intake levels. I think if properly regulated, the potential issues seem a lot less of likelihood.
But, this relies on people doing a good job of regulating our water supply, which Flint, Michigan, USA has shown that we shouldn't be as trusting of the quality of our water that we assumed we could.
That's not true.
Please look at the studies the author posted.
Many problems with fluoride. Even in small amounts its a neurotoxin. As for the thyroid issue mentioned, very small amounts will interfere with iodine.
The study you linked to specifically says, "Professor Peckham said that research was ‘observational’, so no definitive conclusions should be drawn about cause and effect."
That is not any definite proof one way or the other, and does not explore how much Iodine residents are consuming.
Yes, I understand the correlation does not equal causation.
I trust you understand that the gold standard double blinded RCT could not be done here for obvious ethical issues.
There are plenty of mechanism studies that propose potential causal reasons.
Specifically damage seems to be happening to the hippocampus. I will gladly post references if you are interested.
There was also a 2012 systematic review noting a positive relationship between IQ and fluoride in water.
doi: 10.1289/ehp.1104912
Water should be water, you don't need a court to tell you that
This is so sad. Thanks for your hard work on this article. Again money prevails :(. Joy
I've only become aware of the issues with fluoride in the last few years. But is potentially scary and I hope the court is able to get to the bottom and make a well-informed decision. Thankfully we are on well water and it tests clean.
Happy to hear that progress is being made against mass fluoridation.
As someone who has lived in areas without fluoride in the water and in countries without fluoride; the first thing you will notice in those areas is the dentition of the people. People without fluoride in the water all have missing and deformed teeth at very young ages. Research has demonstrated that poor dentition is associated with early onset heart disease. It's not a big leap to think that fluoride is actually contributing to the increases we are seeing in life expectancy.
Fluoride in the water has really helped stem the dental crisis in america, but it isn't enough. Everyday about 5 people are showing up in the ER of the hospital where I work with dental related health emergencies. And this is in a population where fluoride is in the water. It must be definitely worse in areas without fluoride. I want my teeth for as long as I can keep them. Missing teeth are an avenue for infection to get into the blood stream very near the brain. I am a proponent of dental care in the medical world. Thank you for making me aware of this lawsuit. I think its ridiculous, but our legal system seems incapable of making common sense decisions.
I would read this study which disproves the idea that water fluoridation is necessary to help with dental health. truthinmedia.com/new-study-says-water-fluoridation-does-not-reduce-cavities/
Also, do you truly believe the State should be responsible for our dental health?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize truth in media published studies. Would you mind citing the actual material? Also, I didn't say anything about cavities, I was talking about overall dental health. Have you ever visited an area that relies on well water? Have you been to a 3rd world country that doesn't have fluoride in the water? If you have, then tell me how many locals did you meet that had all their teeth intact? I lived in the Caribbean for 2 years and everyone that was a local suffered from poor dental hygiene. If you don't think that impacts their quality and length of life, then maybe you should look at average life expectancy in those countries versus a first world country that has fluoride in the water. Correlation isn't causation, but I'm telling you that you can go witness the dental consequences that result from a lack of fluoride in the water. Adding fluoride to the water has done wonders in the USA to prevent people from losing their teeth.
Just realized you wrote the article at truthinmedia. So we have you to thank for not linking the actual research paper in the article. Dishonest tactic in my opinion.
give me a moment and I will find the study. I wrote the article about 4 years ago. ha my bad.
well water sometimes has naturally occurring fluoride in at as well. There are plenty of nations around the world who do not have fluoride in the water and do fine. Also, the idea is that fluoride only works when applied topically. so how does drinking it via water help? It has effects beyond the teeth, as many studies have pointed out.
oh and the study was linked in the second paragraph ha http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract
"here is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.
There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.
There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation."
very good post bro.
the problem is not fluoridation, the problem is the amount of fluorine in water, maximum acceptable concentration of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5 mg / l and it helps preventing tooth decay. and sometimes it's not added by human; fluoride concentrations may appear in groundwater when rocks or soils containing fluoride disintegrate and dissolve and the removal of excess fluorine from drinking water is a difficult and costly task, and low-cost solutions do not exist, that's why some governements Can not afford this process wich means a lot of health problems.
so i guess that the problem of fluoridation is not small
And can not be resolved in a short period, it needs Cooperation from States and Union and more of research and studies to find a real solution.
thank you for sharing this post :)
Fluoride seems to have fulfilled it's intended purpose...(Hint) It wasn't to fight cavities!
Even if the benefits of fluoridation are real, it is unnecessary in this age of fluoridated toothpaste. Putting it into the water is at best a waste of money.
True, and the benefits they claim are all based on topical use anyway, not internal.
Awesome post. I have been anti fluoride since the beginning. I dropped tap water 35 years ago. Uncontrolled doses of a neurotoxin.....not me or my family. I have signed dozens of petitions and share all info I get to educate the masses. Kodos on your post and position on this serious issue!!