DR. SAUERHEBER EXPLAINS THE SCIENCE AND LAW OF FLUORIDATION
TO SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Dr. Richard Sauerheber
Palomar College
San Marcos, CA 92069
March 15, 2016
Email: richsauerheb@hotmail.com
Office of the District Attorney
330 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, and
Stephen Robinson, Chief Economic Crimes Division,
Thank you for your response to my inquiry. You are correct in stating that the EPA formerly regulated water additives, but presently does not, and instead requested the private organization the NSF to certify chemicals used as additives.
Unfortunately, what you missed is that the Safe Drinking Water Act defines water additives as substances that clean, purify, or sanitize water. Fluoride does not clean or purify water and is not a recognized water additive, although it is infused into U.S. water supplies. The NSF 308–page document lists fluoride as either a contaminant, or an oral ingested dental caries treatment or by nickname as an “additive.” Please understand that the sole purpose for adding fluoride is as a putative ingestible dental prophylactic, specifically to elevate the blood fluoride level to 0.1 ppm, as stated by CA Department of Public Health fluoridation advocate David Nelson under oath (in: Macy vs. Escondido, 2004, see relevant transcript of trial below).
Thus, the EPA not only avoids regulating water additives, but especially has no authority to regulate therapeutic substances. Neither the EPA nor the NSF have clinical staff able to monitor either the effectiveness of the treatment, the blood levels of fluoride in consumers, or the ability to ensure that patients in kidney wards and those with bone disease are not treated with fluoridated water. Neither agency issues warnings for infants not to use fluoridated water, or that fluoride supplements must be discontinued when water is fluoridated. Sadly, while the MWD Los Angeles and also San Diego Water assume litigation liability protection from the EPA, the EPA accepts no liability for the procedure. In fact, the Office of Water, U.S. EPA has written that fluoridation is “the responsibility of the FDA.” But the FDA argues that fluoride is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug in public water supplies that should be regulated by the EPA, since the intentional addition of any EPA regulated contaminant violates the SDWA.
The SDWA prohibits any National requirement for adding any substance into water (other than additives that purify the water mentioned above). Fluoride is thus illegal to add into water according to the SDWA. In fact, the Act was first written for the specific purpose of halting the spread of water “fluoridation” (Graham and Morin,https://www.whale.to/d/Graham.pdf footnote 8, page 211).
The comments parroted by the Surgeons General for the last many decades that you cited are not legally binding. In fact, the SG’s have been requesting this practice for the entire Nation, in violation of the SDWA which forbids this from being required. As you stated, SG’s parrot this as a great “public health achievement of the 20th Century.” But we have been in the 21st Century for 16 years now. We are armed with vast information on the adverse effects of lifelong consumption of fluoride water, especially in those with kidney and bone disease, and other conditions.
The claims that the National Research Council [1] concluded that there is “no credible evidence of harm when humans consume fluoridated water” is in error. Most likely, the District Attorney has been provided false information. It is hoped that there are severe penalties for submitting false information to the District Attorney’s office on matters of such broad public importance. And we trust that you will halt further information collection from that false source.
For example, the NRC published that fluoride levels in blood of consumers of 1 ppm fluoride water are approximately 0.1 ppm. This blood level causes accumulation of fluoride irreversibly into bone to thousands of ppm over lifetime consumption, which causes formation of bone of poor quality (NRC, 2006, p. 94). Moreover, the NRC published that thyroid stimulating hormone TSH is elevated by blood fluoride at this level, to help minimize fluoride-induced thyroid hormone lowering (p. 232). And parathyroid hormone along with calcitonin are elevated (pp. 250, 260) to help maintain normal blood calcium levels in the face of the fluoride poisoning of bone. In about 10 years of fluoridated water consumption, fluoride levels in bone reach 2,000 ppm, which exceeds the concentration in fluoride toothpaste (1,500 ppm). This is accompanied with bone discomfort (Table 5-7, p. 176) in a significant proportion of people. The high incidence of hip fractures in U.S. elderly (1/3 million annually) and the high incidence of bone replacement surgeries are obviously affected by fluoridation of bone, since the NRC established clearly that fluoride at any concentration in bone causes formation of bone of poor quality (p. 133).
Further, the NRC is not the only source of information on harm from water “fluoridation.” 1 ppm levels in blood of kidney patients using 1 ppm fluoridated water in dialysis increased morbidity, which forced the FDA to order that fluoridated water cannot be used in kidney dialysis [2]. We also now have published studies indicating increased incidence of ADHD in U.S. children, and hypothyroidism in the U.K. where water is fluoridated (see FDA.gov petition FDA2007-P-0346 for detailed information).
Although we expect you to correct this through legal channels for the forced “fluoridation” of San Diego residents, we will also heed your advice to contact the CA Dept. of Public Health, Sacramento. With that agency being under the thumb of the policies requested by the Oral Health Division, U.S. CDC, we do not anticipate any action on their part to help San Diego residents on this matter, even though States can be no less restrictive than the Federal requirements of the SDWA [2], and fluoridation violates the FD&CA (see previous letter). We hoped that you would recognize that whole body fluoridation of innocent consumers, being ineffective, harmful, expensive, and illegal requires that the production of source materials must follow Good Manufacturing Practices as stipulated in the FD&CA for supplements or drugs, and that its dissemination for ingestion requires a prescription and warnings that fluoride tablets (allowed but not approved by the FDA by prescription) are not to be ingested when water is fluoridated. San Diego Water and the NSF are in violation of all these points by obtaining, certifying, and disseminating toxic hazardous waste fluosilicic acid as source materials for “fluoridation” in San Diego. You could be the hero, as San Diego citizens, who voted twice against this, wait.
Thank you for your time,
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
[1] National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006.
[2] Sauerheber, R., Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluorides Used in Water Fluoridation, Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490, 2013 see: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/
Excerpt from court testimony of Dr. Nelson, DHS, in case of Macy vs. City of Escondido:
UNEDITED REALTIME / DRAFT TRANSCRIPT OF
DAVID F. NELSON, D.D.S., M.S.
TAKEN TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004
RE:
SHIRLEY MACY, ET AL. VS. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, ET AL
….
Q: IF IT’S NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCREASING
FLUORIDE IN THE CHILD’S DIET, FOR WHAT PURPOSE, THEN,
WOULD THE ADDITION OF A FLUORIDATION CHEMICAL IN THE
WATER SUPPLY BE USED FOR?
A: TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE IN THE
CHILD’S BLOODSTREAM AND CERTAINLY THEN INTO THE SALIVA,
WHICH IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT FLUORIDE WORKS. IT HAS NO
RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD’S DIET.
Q: OKAY. INTRODUCING IT TO THE BLOODSTREAM, ARE
FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS ONLY RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN IN
NONFLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES?
A: YES.
Shameless Marketing
(I too need to make a living.)
Listing Broker – as both broker and attorney for the seller, I do not charge anything extra for legal work pertaining to the transaction. My only compensation is my commission.
Buyer Broker – as both broker and attorney for the buyer, I do not charge anything extra for legal work pertaining to the transaction. My only compensation is my commission.
Helping brokers – with complex deals
Escrow Set Up – for when there is a hand-shake agreement but a lawyer’s hand is needed to get the deal written up and closed
Helping help For-Sale-By-Owner buyers and sellers
If you are a buyer with 10% to to pay down but no credit, set up a lease-option deal
Mortgage Modification – Foreclosure Defense – Sometimes modification is preferred over a short sale
James Robert Deal, Attorney Broker
Madison Partners Real Estate
425-771-1110, 888-999-2022
James at James Deal dot com
Ok, let’s see if we can straighten out this erroneous mess of Deal’s “Scientific Consultant”, Richard Sauerheber.
1. Sauerheber: “You are correct in stating that the EPA formerly regulated water additives, but presently does not, and instead requested the private organization the NSF to certify chemicals used as additives.”
Facts:
A. The EPA does, indeed, regulate contaminants in additives to public drinking water.
“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies contaminants to regulate in drinking water. The Agency sets regulatory limits for the amounts of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. These contaminant standards are required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA protects public health by implementing the SDWA provisions while working with states, tribes, and many other partners.”
—-Drinking Water Contaminants – Standards and Regulations
US Environmental Protection Agency
Updated January 6, 2016
B. The NSF provides testing and develops quality standards for drinking water which are then mandated and enforced by the EPA.
“NSF International is a not-for-profit standards development and conformity assessment organization. Products used for drinking water treatment are evaluated to the criteria specified in NSF/ANSI Standard 60. This standard was developed by an NSF International-led consortium, including the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF), the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), and the Conference of State Health and Environmental Managers (COSHEM). This group developed NSF/ANSI Standard 60, at the request of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Office of Water, in 1988.”
—NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Products
National Sanitary Foundation
February 15, 2013
2. Sauerheber: “the Safe Drinking Water Act defines water additives as substances that clean, purify, or sanitize water.”
Facts:
“The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) defines “contaminant” as any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter in water. Drinking water may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. Some contaminants may be harmful if consumed at certain levels in drinking water. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk.”
—-Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and Regulatory Determination
US Environmental Protection Agency
Updated October 13, 2015
3. Sauerheber: “the sole purpose for adding fluoride is as a putative ingestible dental prophylactic, specifically to elevate the blood fluoride level to 0.1 ppm, as stated by CA Department of Public Health fluoridation advocate David Nelson under oath”
Facts:
The purpose of water fluoridation is to increase the existing level of fluoride in drinking water up to that concentration at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects. This level is termed the “optimal level” and is an official recommendation of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The current recommended optimal level is 0.7 ppm.
“Community water fluoridation is ‘the controlled addition of a fluoride compound to a public water supply to achieve a concentration optimal for dental caries prevention.’ ”
—-Katherine Weno, DDS, JD
Director, Division of Oral Health
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
STATEMENT ON THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION
June 8, 2015
3. Sauerheber: “Thus, the EPA not only avoids regulating water additives, but especially has no authority to regulate therapeutic substances. Neither the EPA nor the NSF have clinical staff able to monitor either the effectiveness of the treatment, the blood levels of fluoride in consumers, or the ability to ensure that patients in kidney wards and those with bone disease are not treated with fluoridated water.”
Facts:
A. As clearly evidenced previously, the EPA does indeed regulate water additives.
B. The EPA has full authority to regulate all substances in drinking water supplies, “therapeutic” or otherwise.
C. It is not the responsibility of the EPA or the NSF to monitor the effectiveness of any “treatment, the blood levels of fluoride in consumers, or the ability to ensure that patients in kidney wards and those with bone disease are not treated with fluoridated water”, or any other such tasks which fluoridation opponents personally opine should be done. The EPA is responsible for determining and enforcing safe levels of fluoride and other substances in drinking water. It does so based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence through the assistance of periodic, extensive reviews of the fluoride literature by the National Research Council. The NSF provides the quality standards and stringent testing of drinking water as required by the EPA.
4. Sauerheber: “The SDWA prohibits any National requirement for adding any substance into water (other than additives that purify the water mentioned above). Fluoride is thus illegal to add into water according to the SDWA. In fact, the Act was first written for the specific purpose of halting the spread of water ‘fluoridation’ ”.
Facts:
A. The SDWA does not prohibit state and local officials from adding “any substance into water (other than additives that purify the water mentioned above).” It simply prohibits any such national requirement. The decision to fluoridate water systems is made on the state and local level. Obviously there is nothing illegal about this process.
B. The SDWA was not written “for the specific purpose of halting the spread of water ‘fluoridation’ “. It was written to protect the quality of drinking water in the US.
“The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources.”
42 U.S.C. §300f et seq. (1974)
Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act
US Environmental Protection Agency
October 8, 2015
5. Sauerheber: “We are armed with vast information on the adverse effects of lifelong consumption of fluoride water, especially in those with kidney and bone disease, and other conditions.”
Facts:
There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any “adverse effects of lifelong consumption of fluoride water, especially in those with kidney and bone disease, and other conditions.”……..as evidenced by Sauerheber’s inability to provide any such evidence.
to be continued……….
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
continued……….
6. Sauerheber: “The claims that the National Research Council concluded that there is “no credible evidence of harm when humans consume fluoridated water” is in error.”
Facts:
The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.
Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.
In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:
“I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”
—John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
7. Sauerheber: “1 ppm levels in blood of kidney patients using 1 ppm fluoridated water in dialysis increased morbidity, which forced the FDA to order that fluoridated water cannot be used in kidney dialysis”
Facts:
Sauerheber cites himself as support for this claim. Obviously citing an unsubstantiated claim he makes in his own paper as evidence for his unsubstantiated claim in this instance, is meaningless. Even allowing for this, Sauerheber fails to even quote his own paper accurately. In an unsubstantiated statement in his paper, Sauerheber opines that: “Fluoridated water at 0.7–1 ppm is unsuitable for dialysis and the FDA has published instructions to that effect.” This does not equate with his claim here that the FDA was “forced to order that fluoridated water cannot be used in kidney dialysis”. As Sauerheber states in his paper, the reason for minimizing the concentration level of contaminants in water used for dialysis is due to the enormous quantity of this water to which dialysis patients are exposed.
Kidney dialysis involves enormous amounts of water. Thus that water must be as pure as possible, with the concentration of all substances being eliminated or minimized as much as possible. Chlorine, for example, must be completely removed from water utilized in dialysis. If we were to base the content of public water supplies on the content required for kidney dialysis, we would have to distill all such water prior to use. Severely medically compromised patients such as those requiring dialysis must carefully monitor their intake of all substances, in strict accordance with directives from their healthcare providers. That they must do so is not a reason to deprive entire populations the benefits of a very valuable public health initiative.
“Haemodialysis and haemodiafiltration can expose the patient to more than 500 l of water per week across the semi-permeable membrane of the haemodialyser or haemodiafilter. Healthy individuals seldom have a weekly oral intake above 12 l. This over 40-fold increase in exposure requires control and monitoring of water quality to avoid excesses of known or suspected harmful substances.”
—-ISO Water for haemodialysis and related therapies
8. Sauerheber: “We also now have published studies indicating increased incidence of ADHD in U.S. children, and hypothyroidism in the U.K. where water is fluoridated.”
Facts:
A. The ADHD study to which Sauerheber refers is Malin, et al. This study has been widely criticized and discredited in the scientific literature for its poor methodology, inadequate control for confounders, and conclusions not supported by the peer-reviewed science. The inadequate control is clearly exampled by the Huber, et al. 2015 study which, using the same data as had Malin, concluded the reported cases of ADHD to have been due to elevation level at which the children resided, not to water fluoridation.
“It’s [Malin, et al.] an ecological study design with 51 observations (50 states & DC), and is not appropriate to test a hypothesis. ADHD prevalence was based on self-reported data, and hence had a potential of misclassification of disorder status. State-wide fluoridation measures were used. Individuals’ exposure to fluoridation were not measured. Due to ecological assessment of exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the use of prevalence data of self-reported ADHD and water fluoridation from different years, the findings are at high risk for ecological fallacy. Authors did not adjust for important confounders (smoking, low birth weight, age, sex etc.). Moreover, authors’ poor literature review and skewed interpretation of literature concerning fluoride and neurodevelomental defects may have introduced bias.”
—–Review of “Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association”
Shivani Arora, BDS, MPH, CPH
Fluoride Science
B. The hypothyroidism study was one performed by Stephen Peckham, a long-time antifluoridationist who is the former chair of the British antifluoridationist faction, “Hampshire Against Fluoride”. This clear conflict of interest aside, his study has been widely criticized for having poor methodology, inadequate controls for variables, and reaching a conclusion that is not supported by his data or the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
“In summary, this study is an ecologic one that has several significant flaws, making it almost meaningless with regard to assessing any possible association between water fluoridation and hypothyroidism. As such, this study provides no evidence of a causal relationship between water fluoride concentration and hypothyroidism.”
—No Evidence Supports the Claim That Water Fluoridation Causes Hypothyroidism
John J. Warren
Professor, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, Department of Preventive & Community Dentistry, The University of Iowa
Maria C.P. Saraiva
Associate Professor, University of Sa~o Paulo School of Dentistry of Ribeira~o Preto, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Av do Cafe s/n, Ribeira~o Preto
9. Sauerheber: “San Diego Water and the NSF are in violation of all these points by obtaining, certifying, and disseminating toxic hazardous waste fluosilicic acid as source materials for ‘fluoridation’ in San Diego.”
Facts:
As I have clearly demonstrated, there are no such “violations” by San Diego Water, the NSF, or anyone else, in regard to the public health initiative of water fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
The story of the assignment of responsibility over fluoridation by FDA to EPA and then to NSF is spelled out in detail at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sham. The FDA had no power to assign its regulatory duties to EPA, and EPA had no power to set up and finance NSF in the fluoridation approval business. The Memorandum which allegedly made the assignment was revoked. NSF does not certify fluoride to be safe and effective, only to be safe, which is something the FDA would never do.
You fluoridationists amaze me. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/you-fluroidationists-amaze-me
Oh, and by the way,fluoridation is illegal. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/deal-to-conference-of-governors-4-4-2016