How to Market a Toxic Waste

[Guest guest]

This is a very interesting article related to the fluoridation issue ..

 

I'm not forwarding the rest of the series articles linked to Gary Null's

fluoridation page

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Dental/Fluoride/index.htm

 

There are just too many, but I did find this one to be VERY important to

read, so here goes ...

 

*Smile*

Chris (list mom)

 

http://www.alittleolfactory.com

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

How to Market a Toxic Waste

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Dental/Fluoride/fluoride2.htm

 

" We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would

not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that

fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than

arsenic. " (1)

 

These words of Dr. John Yiamouyiannis may come as a shock to you

because, if you're like most Americans, you have positive associations

with fluoride. You may envision tooth protection, strong bones, and a

government that cares about your dental needs. What you've probably

never been told is that the fluoride added to drinking water and

toothpaste is a crude industrial waste product of the aluminum and

fertilizer industries, and a substance toxic enough to be used as rat

poison. How is it that Americans have learned to love an environmental

hazard? This phenomenon can be attributed to a carefully planned

marketing program begun even before Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the

first community to officially fluoridate its drinking water in 1945.(2)

As a result of this ongoing campaign, nearly two-thirds of the nation

has enthusiastically followed Grand Rapids' example. But this push for

fluoridation has less to do with a concern for America's health than

with industry's penchant to expand at the expense of our nation's

well-being.

 

The first thing you have to understand about fluoride is that it's the

problem child of industry. Its toxicity was recognized at the beginning

of the Industrial Revolution, when, in the 1850s iron and copper

factories discharged it into the air and poisoned plants, animals, and

people.(3)

 

In the early years of the 20th Century, a young dentist named Frederick

McKay settled in Colorado Springs, Colorado. There he discovered that as

many as 90% of lifetime residents of the town had grotesque brown stains

on their teeth, and that the tooth enamel had an irregular surface

texture described as " mottled " . Locals referred to the familiar

condition as Colorado Brown Stain, but no one had a clue as to its

cause. Over the next two decades Dr. McKay, later with the help of

dental researcher G. V. Black, proved that the cause was something

contaminating the water supply. They also speculated that the affected

teeth might be somewhat more resistant to decay. (4)

 

By the 1920's, rapid industrial growth had exacerbated the problems of

industrial pollution, and fluoride was one of the biggest problems.

Medical writer Joel Griffiths explains that " it was abundantly clear to

both industry and government that spectacular U.S. industrial expansion

-- and the economic and military power and vast profits it promised --

would necessitate releasing millions of tons of waste fluoride into the

environment. " (5) Their biggest fear was that " if serious injury to

people were established, lawsuits alone could prove devastating to

companies, while public outcry could force industry-wide government

regulations, billions in pollution-control costs, and even mandatory

changes in high-fluoride raw materials and profitable technologies. " (6)

 

In 1931, by means of photo-spectrographic analysis of McKay and Black's

water samples conducted at the laboratories at the Aluminum Company of

America (ALCOA), it was confirmed that the cause of the mottled teeth

was fluoride in the water supply. ALCOA took a proprietary interest in

this issue, since fluoride is a major waste product of aluminum

production. The company wanted to know how much fluoride exposure people

could tolerate without getting mottled, discolored teeth. Or, more

specifically, how much fluoride could ALCOA release into the nation's

earth, water, and air without the public realizing that the company was

polluting the environment with a powerful toxin?(7)

 

That question was to be addressed later that same year, when H. Trendley

Dean was sent to study water sources in 345 Texas communities. Dean, a

former dental surgeon for the US Public Health Service, was then head of

the Dental Hygiene Unit of the National Institute of Health. (Dean's

overseer and mentor at the USPHS had been Treasury Secretary Andrew W.

Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA.) Based on his own

research, Dean claimed that " fluoride levels of up to 1.0 ppm in

drinking water did not cause mottled enamel; if the fluoride exceeded

this level, however, fluorosis would occur. " (8)

 

Now Dean remembered McKay and Black's claims that fluorosis victims

mottled, discolored teeth were especially resistant decay. He came up

with the notion that fluoride added to the water supply at the magic

threshold dosage of 1 ppm would prevent tooth decay, while avoiding

damage to bones and teeth.(9) He recommended further studies to

determine whether his hypothesis was true.

 

Griffiths continues: " Back at the Mellon Institute, ALCOA's Pittsburgh

industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. There, biochemist

Gerald J. Cox immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and

concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that: " The case should be

regarded as proved. " In a historic moment in 1939, the first public

proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made not

by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a

company threatened by fluoride damage claims and burdened by the odious

expense of disposing of tons of toxic industrial waste. Cox began

touring the country, stumping for fluoridation.(10)

 

Dean would go on to carve out a nice career for himself as the " father "

of public water fluoridation. He became the first dental scientist at

the National Institute of Health, advancing to director of the dental

research section in 1945. After World War II, he directed

epidemiological studies for the Army in Germany. When Congress

established the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) in 1948,

Dean was appointed its director, a position he held until retiring in

1953.(11) In his post at the NIDR, he was to oversee the first clinical

trial of fluoridation in an American city, Grand Rapids Michigan.(12)

 

With those impressive credentials, wouldn't you think a man of science

like Dean could be trusted? Think again. The truth is that Dean's great

discovery was based on wishful thinking and some very shaky science, as

documented by healthy advocate Andreas Schuld(13). Dean's findings did

not stand up to scientific scrutiny at all. An independent study of his

results revealed that he had engaged in " selective use of data, "

employing figures from 21 cities that confirmed his findings, and

ignoring those from 272 other localities that didn't. (14) In a 1955

court case challenging fluoridation, Dean admitted under oath that his

published conclusions were wrong.(15) In hearings conducted by the AMA

in 1957, he was forced to admit that dental fluorosis, the first sign of

fluoride overdose, could be caused by water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm.(16)

But these admissions were not widely publicized, and they were never

acknowledged by the USPHS, the American Dental Association, or the other

governmental bodies responsible for foisting fluoride on the public.

They continued to play the classic denial game: " act like nothing's

wrong. " And they are still doing it to this very day.

 

At first, industry could dispose of fluoride legally only in small

amounts by selling it to insecticide and rat poison manufacturers. (17)

But Dean's " discovery, " paved the way for a commercial outlet for the

toxin. Griffiths writes that this was not a scientific breakthrough, but

rather part of a " public disinformation campaign " by the aluminum

industry " to convince the public that fluoride was safe and good, "

Industry's need prompted Alcoa-funded scientist Gerald J. Cox to

announce that " The present trend toward complete removal of fluoride

from water may need some reversal. " (18) Griffiths writes:

 

" The big news in Cox's announcement was that this 'apparently worthless

by-product' had not only been proved safe (in low doses), but actually

beneficial; it might reduce cavities in children. A proposal was in the

air to add fluoride to the entire nation's drinking water. While the

dose to each individual would be low, 'fluoridation' on a national scale

would require the annual addition of hundreds of thousands of tons of

fluoride to the country's drinking water.

 

" Government and industry - especially Alcoa - strongly supported

intentional water fluoridation...[it] made possible a master public

relations stroke - one that could keep scientists and the public off

fluoride's case for years to come. If the leaders of dentistry,

medicine, and public health could be persuaded to endorse fluoride in

the public's drinking water, proclaiming to the nation that there was a

'wide margin of safety,' how were they going to turn around later and

say industry's fluoride pollution was dangerous?

 

" As for the public, if fluoride could be introduced as a health

enhancing substance that should be added to the environment for the

children's sake, those opposing it would look like quacks and lunatics....

 

" Back at the Mellon Institute, Alcoa's Pittsburgh Industrial research

lab, this news was galvanic. Alcoa-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox

immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that

fluoride reduced cavities and that 'The case should be regarded as

proved.' In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that

the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made - not by a

doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a

company threatened by fluoride damage claims. " (19)

 

Once the plan was put into action, industry was buoyant. They had

finally found the channel for fluoride that they were looking for, and

they were even cheered on by dentists, government agencies, and the

public. Chemical Week, a publication for the chemical industry,

described the tenor of the times: " All over the country, slide rules are

getting warm as waterworks engineers figure the cost of adding fluoride

to their water supplies. " They are riding a trend urged upon them, by

the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, the

State Dental Health Directors, various state and local health bodies,

and vocal women's clubs from coast to coast. It adds up to a nice piece

of business on all sides and many firms are cheering the PHS and similar

groups as they plump for increasing adoption of fluoridation. " (20)

 

Such overwhelming acceptance allowed government and industry to proceed

hastily, albeit irresponsibly. The Grand Rapids experiment was supposed

to take 15 years, during which time health benefits and hazards were to

be studied. In 1946, however, just one year into the experiment, six

more U.S. cities adopted the process. By 1947, 87 more communities were

treated; popular demand was the official reason for this unscientific haste.

 

The general public and its leaders did support the cause, but only

after a massive government public relations campaign spearheaded by

Edward L. Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays, a public

relations pioneer who has been called " the original spin doctor, " (21)

was a masterful PR strategist. As a result of his influence, Griffiths

writes, " Almost overnight...the popular image of fluoride -- which at

the time was being widely sold as rat and bug poison -- became that of a

beneficial provider of gleaming smiles, absolutely safe, and good for

children, bestowed by a benevolent paternal government. Its opponents

were permanently engraved on the public mind as crackpots and right-wing

loonies. " (22)

 

Griffiths explains that while opposition to fluoridation is usually

associated with right-wingers, this picture is not totally accurate. He

provides an interesting historical perspective on the anti-fluoridation

stance:

 

" Fluoridation attracted opponents from every point on the continuum of

politics and sanity. The prospect of the government mass-medicating the

water supplies with a well-known rat poison to prevent a nonlethal

disease flipped the switches of delusionals across the country - as well

as generating concern among responsible scientists, doctors, and citizens.

 

" Moreover, by a fortuitous twist of circumstances, fluoride's natural

opponents on the left were alienated from the rest of the opposition.

Oscar Ewing, a Federal Security Agency administrator, was a Truman " fair

dealer " who pushed many progressive programs such as nationalized

medicine. Fluoridation was lumped with his proposals. Inevitably, it was

attacked by conservatives as a manifestation of " creeping socialism, "

while the left rallied to its support. Later during the McCarthy era,

the left was further alienated from the opposition when extreme

right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux

Klan, raved that fluoridation was a plot by the Soviet Union and/or

communists in the government to poison America's brain cells.

 

" It was a simple task for promoters, under the guidance of the 'original

spin doctor,' to paint all opponents as deranged - and they played this

angle to the hilt....

 

" Actually, many of the strongest opponents originally started out as

proponents, but changed their minds after a close look at the evidence.

And many opponents came to view fluoridation not as a communist plot,

but simply as a capitalist-style con job of epic proportions. Some could

be termed early environmentalists, such as the physicians George L.

Waldbott and Frederick B. Exner, who first documented

government-industry complicity in hiding the hazards of fluoride

pollution from the public. Waldbott and Exner risked their careers in a

clash with fluoride defenders, only to see their cause buried in

toothpaste ads. " (23)

 

By 1950, fluoridation's image was a sterling one, and there was not

much science could do at this point. The Public Health Service was

fluoridation's main source of funding as well as its promoter, and

therefore caught in a fundamental conflict of interest.(24) If

fluoridation were found to be unsafe and ineffective, and laws were

repealed, the organization feared a loss of face, since scientists,

politicians, dental groups, and physicians unanimously supported it.(25)

For this reason, studies concerning its effects were not undertaken. The

Oakland Tribune noted this when it stated that " public health officials

have often suppressed scientific doubts " about fluoridation. (26)

Waldbott sums up the situation when he says that from the beginning, the

controversy over fluoridating water supplies was " a political, not a

scientific health issue. " (27)

 

The marketing of fluoride continues. In a 1983 letter from the

Environmental Protection Agency, then Deputy Assistant Administrator for

Water, Rebecca Hammer, writes that the EPA " regards [fluoridation] as an

ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering

by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air

pollution are minimized and water utilities have a low-cost source of

fluoride available to them. " (28) More recently, a 1992 policy statement

from the Department of Health and Human Services says, " A recent

comprehensive PHS review of the benefits and potential health risks of

fluoride has concluded that the practice of fluoridating community water

supplies is safe and effective. " (29)

 

Today, nearly 250 million people worldwide drink fluoridated water,

including about 130 million Americans in 9600 communities. Out of the 50

largest cities in the US, 41 have fluoridated water.(30)

 

To help celebrate fluoride's widespread use, the media recently reported

on the 50th anniversary of fluoridation in Grand Rapids. Newspaper

articles titled " Fluoridation: a shining public health success " (31) and

" After 50 years, fluoride still works with a smile " (32) painted glowing

pictures of the practice. Had investigators looked more closely, though,

they might have learned that children in Muskegon, Michigan, an

unfluoridated " control " city, had equal drops in dental decay. They

might also have learned of the other studies that dispute the supposed

wonders of fluoride.