WE CAN AND WILL STOP FLUORIDATION
IN CALIFORNIA
BY JOHN YIAMOUYIANNIS, Ph.D.

 

Fluoride, by itself, is a greater threat to drinking water safety than all other water contaminants combined. But knowing how harmful fluoride is - and doing something about it - are two separate issue.

Late last year, the California State Legislature passed a mandatory fluoridation law. If not stopped, this law would fluoridate the water supplies of another 25,000,000 people in California in addition to the 5,000,000 Californians already being fluoridated. Earlier this year, we submitted a ballot measure, which would ban fluoridation statewide, to the California Attorney General's office for him to provide an unbiased title and summary as required by law before we can circulate it.

On April 2, 1996, the California Attorney General's office, in an apparent attempt to stop us from getting the fluoridation issue on the ballot, came back with a summary containing a false and baseless estimate that claimed that stopping fluoridation would eventually cost the state "$15 million annually" and perhaps cost local governments millions more. In providing the ballot summary, the Attorney General is required by law to give a true and impartial statement of the purposes of the measure in such language that the ballot summary is neither an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure. If the estimate had a factual basis, the Attorney general would have the right to make such a statement. But there was and is no factual basis for the estimate.

Before it was written, we supplied the person (Daniel Kim) who prepared the three-page fiscal report upon which the title and summary was based, the following information along with copies of the original articles with regard to the ineffectiveness of fluoridation in reducing dental costs or tooth decay:

"In its most recent review of the fluoridation issue, the American Chemical society, through it news magazine, 'Chemical and Engineering News' states: ' . . . when the actual costs of dental care delivered in similar cities is compared, residents of fluoridated cities seem to reap no economic benefit from fluoridation.' 'All the recent large-scale studies on fluoridation and tooth decay show that fluoridation does not reduce decay in permanent teeth: (1) in the largest U.S. study on fluoridation and tooth decay, dental records of over 39,000 school children showed that the number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth (DMFT) per child was virtually the same in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas; (2) statistics from about 60,000 12 to 13 year old children showed that fluoridation had no significant effect on the decay rate of permanent teeth; and (3) 'survey results in British Colombia with only 11 percent of the population using fluoridated water show lower average DMFT (tooth decay) rates than provinces with 40-70 percent of the population drinking fluoridated water."

Furthermore, all the studies on fluoridation and tooth decay performed on 5,000 or more students over the last thirty years taken together show that fluoridation doesn't reduce tooth damage in the form of dental fluorosis.

Mr. Kim claimed in his analysis: "We are not aware of any scientific evidence that the existing concentration of fluoridated water increase the incidence of cancer in humans." However, before he even wrote the report, we supplied him with copies of the original studies showing that the concentrations of fluoride used to fluoridate public drinking waters are linked to cancer, along with laboratories' studies showing that fluoride causes cancer, including all the references supporting the statements made in the following summary, which was also supplied to him:

" . . . Dr. Dean Burk and I conducted a series of studies showing that fluoridation was linked to approximately 10,000 or more cancer deaths per year. In 1977, full-scale hearings by the subcommittee on intergovernmental relations (of the U.S. Congress) confirmed they could no longer assure the American public that fluoridation doesn't cause cancer and ordered the USPHS to conduct laboratory studies to determine whether fluoride caused cancer. The USPHS contracted Battelle Research Institute to do the study. In the meantime, two other lab studies showed that fluoride did cause cancer.

When the results from Battelle finally came out, they showed that fluoride was linked to a rare form of liver cancer, oral tumors and bone cancer. Since that time, the National Cancer Institute, the New Jersey Department of Health, and the Safe Water Foundation all found that the incidence of osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer, was substantially higher in young men exposed to fluoridated water as compared to those who were not. The Safe Water Foundation also confirmed higher oral cancer rates in humans."

We are in the process of taking the Attorney General, Secretary of State, as well as other relevant parties to court (1)to get them to remove all the claims from the summary that our ballot measure, if passed, would result in an increase in dental costs; (2) to require them to correct their analysis (which will appear in the voter's pamphlet); and (3) to have the court order the proposed statute be placed on the November 1996 ballot due to the delay that the attorney General has caused in the petitioner's efforts in, and thus preventing him from getting this issue on the November 1996 ballot.

If we don't stop this, the rest of the United States will be fluoridated within the next three to four years. As, or more important, if crooked politicians find they can get away with putting this highly poisonous chemical into our water, the list and scope of future legislative and bureaucratic abuses will be without limit.


Return to the July/August Index Page