Fluoride is an Industrial Product

Clint Griess 0:01 Hello, everyone, and welcome to the June 2014, International Florida free teleconference. My name is Clint Griess. And I will be your host today. I'm so so very happy to be with you all. Again, this is going to be an awesome conversation with Dr. Bill Hersey, we're going to be looking at the industrial nature of fluoridation chemicals, where they come from how to get into the supply. The then, because of his experience with the EPA, we're also going to learn about the federal government's control or lack of control of the substance. And so, today's presentation is going to be accompanied with some visual slides that Dr. Hurst he has presented as prepared for us today. So, if you haven't already taken the time to to go to your confirmation email and click on the link that will begin an application for your computer allowing you to watch along with us today. As Dr. Herzing takes us through some slides, please go to go to do that now. You can also join in on the Facebook page for today's event. Simply search on international Florida free teleconference and your Facebook browser field and then select the event for today's event. There you'll be able to post your comments or questions and communicate with other folks who are also online today. I'm so grateful to be together. This teleconference is an international gathering of forestry activists who will share our information and experiences and inspiration so that we can support each other in our local, state and national campaigns to end fluoridation. The success of today's teleconference as well as all the monthly teleconferences is based on your participation. So thanks for coming today. I also want to thank all the presenters who over the months have taken the time to put together some very informative and inspirational presentations for us. And today is no exception. So I'd like to actually go ahead and introduce our presenter for today. Dr. Bill Herzl, he's on the line with us. And He is currently the Washington DC rep. For Florida Action Network. And he's in Washington DC. Working for Florida Action Network, he had spent from 1981 to 2008, at the EPA, as a senior scientists and chemists in the risk assessment division on pesticides and toxic toxic substances. He was the president of the Union of scientists there at the EPA. And even before that, he actually worked for Monsanto. So today we're going to hear actually a fair amount is right up front about Dr. Hers his life, we want to get to know him better. He's been on the beat for a long time. So I want you all to get a sense of what what it's like to have somebody who understands these issues for many decades, and what he's been through. And then we're going to get into the question of the substance itself. Fluoridation chemicals, where they come from the process that ends up in our water. And then we're going to talk about some health effects. And ultimately, Dr. Halsey will have some comments for us about the political terrain that we are in today and what he sees as the best next steps for assault. So Dr. Rizvi say hello.

Dr. William Hirzy 4:15 Hello, everybody. It's a pleasure to be here with you today. It's going to be interesting. I think we should I hope so.

Clint Griess 4:22 Yes, it's been awesome getting to know you. In preparation for today's call, you are a hero to me. Many underline as well.

Dr. William Hirzy 4:34 Well, are many, many more many more people who have done a lot more than I have. I've just simply been following my nose and following the leadership of people like Bob Cardin and Bill Coniglio and Bill Marcus at the EPA headquarters union who really were leading the fight on this issue. And I'm just happy that I'm still healthy enough to to have Keep keep up with this work.

Clint Griess 5:04 Yes, thanks for your thanks. Thank God for your good health. Well, tell us a little about yourself, I know you have some photographs of you.

Dr. William Hirzy 5:15 I put together a couple of quick photos, that sort of summary of my career track, if you will. And I'd like to share those along with some notes. In connection with that, let me put this up for those who are able to follow online. There, let's see 123455 photos. And let's see, we're gonna start with start with the first one this, this photo is one taken of me while I was still in college. And my career track was not particularly to be a chemist, and an activist in this field, but I was went to college on a regular Navy ROTC scholarship, hoping to be a Marine officer. But that didn't pan out for for medical reasons. And when I graduated, finally, after eight years in school, I went to work for Monsanto and was a research chemist. This next pictures taken from a campaign literature, when I was still a research chemist at Monsanto, I was also I become active politically. In St. Louis County, and I was running for the Democratic committee man of the township, I lived in Jefferson Township. My hair was a little longer and darker, and so was my beard. The next photo is also of a time when I was at Monsanto, at this point I had in 1979. moved from the research bench, actually met happened in 1978, into the environmental management part of the company and was working closely with other companies in the that were in the plasticizer vinyl plasticizer business and developed a comprehensive environmental management plan for a big class of chemicals called salad esters, and still are of regulatory interest to EPA and FDA and several other entities. In parallel to that my political interests branched off into environmental affairs outside of the company, and I got involved in nuclear issues when some of my friends asked me to to help them deal with some nuclear waste issues in St. Louis County. And we also became interested in the plans to build a nuclear power plant about 90 miles upstream on the Missouri River from St. Louis and we decided that on the anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident that we would stage a civil disobedience action up there. I wrote my boss at at Monsanto, a letter, a memo saying that I was going to participate in that I might have to spend some time in jail. And he was nonplussed to say the least he said, Do you know what this is going to do to your career bill? And I said, Well, I mean, I have to do what I think is right. And so I went ahead and this next slide is a next pictures, a photo of my back in and the back of one of my colleagues and others sitting on the ground at the site of nuclear power plant construction site in Callaway County, Missouri, where we were subsequently arrested. And that led eventually to my being removed from the environmental management position at Monsanto had been doing a lot of work with EPA and managed to convince EPA that the plan I had put together to manage the environmental and human health impact of Falleen esters made a lot of sense, I was able to convince vice presidents of Environmental Affairs for some major chemical companies in addition to Monsanto of BASF, chemical, Exxon chemical, shell, chemical tenneco and sold that plan to all of those entities. And when I was removed from my environmental job at EPA I realized that my career there was

pretty much at a dead end. So I looked for other work, put in my made some contacts with people at EPA. And about nine months later, I was working at EPA starting in May of 1981. I immediately joined with other professionals who were concerned at that time at the beginning of the Reagan administration about the ability of EPA professionals to continue doing ethical environmental protection work with a minimum of political interference with our science work. And we eventually decided that we would form a labor union. And, and we did, we went to a representational election in 1980. Ford, from that time forward, I was always a Union officer in one office or another. Eventually, I served three terms as president of the Union. One of the first things that we got involved with at EPA in terms of a conflict with with EPA, as the representatives of the professionals had to do with asbestos, actually, this, this led directly to our involvement in fluoride. But our asbestos work happened when EPA had sent some rules that involve banning and phasing, banning and mining of asbestos and phasing down phasing out some of the uses for asbestos. And they had sent these rules over to the Office of Management and Budget. And one day, there was a press conference in the administrator's office, where the General Counsel of EPA said to the gathered press, people and environmental organizations that the CI, EPA just realized that they couldn't issue these rules after all, that they had to step aside. And let OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission handle these problems. And this made the EPA professionals who had worked on these rules for years and years and years with the science and had studied the legal authority of the agency to regulate asbestos, extremely angry. And so I and some of my colleagues drafted a letter to the administrator and the head 150 or so most of the science staff in the Office of toxic substances agreed to sign it, saying that the the excuse that was given that the EPA couldn't, couldn't issue those those rules was made it made a travesty of our work made a joke of our work. In fact, the Office of General Counsel in the administrator had looked at the very closely at the law, and decided that in fact, EPA, and also the, the legal staffs at OSHA, and at CPSC, had looked at the law and decided, among all three agencies that EPA has had the only EPA laws had the only authority to do effective control. And for that for, for the general counsel of EPA to come out and say, Oh, gee, we just realized we couldn't do this. Just what made a joke of our work. And so the long and the short of that is that this got out into the media. And there was an article in The New York Times about this group of activist people union people down at EPA, who were really concerned about the agency doing the job that that the citizens expected the agency to do. And wasn't it an interesting development? And pretty soon that the phone rang. And I don't remember who was on the line because I didn't take the call. But eventually, they said, Hey, you guys, would you like to hear a seminar about fluoride? As it turned out? EPA was in the middle of writing, its drinking water regulations for fluoride. And one of the staff members who was writing the regulation came to Bob Cardin who was the leader on the union's leader on fluoride for years and years and years and I was I just carried a satchel around for him and listened in and and learn from Bob, but I He said to Bob,

this is a travesty. EPA is setting the standard of four milligrams per liter knowing full well that a very large fraction of kids are going to have teeth that look had been will look like they've been chewing on rocks and shoe polish, in other words that they have severe dental fluorosis. And and so we had that complaint for a sudden this this does not seem ethically Correct. I mean that what they're saying EPA is saying that having teeth like that is not an adverse health effect. The drinking water law says that the maximum contaminant level goal which must be set for the enforceable maximum contaminant level, maximum contaminant level goal is a health based standard. And it's not enforceable, but the law says that it's supposed to protect against any known or anticipated adverse effect on health within with an adequate margin of safety and it's supposed to protect all members of the population. And this decision to call severe dental fluorosis, not an adverse health effect, but merely a cosmetic effect. Just flies in the face of good science. So we responded to the we responded to the offer to have a seminar by John yummy, yummy honest, on fluoride with big affirmative response. And so interestingly, by the way, we couldn't have jonjo Ammianus, on site at EPA do this seminar. The, the agency was very anti union. And at any rate, after the after the seminar, Bob carton and I went up to see the Director of the Office of drinking water and said and said to him that we had just heard this seminar by Dr. Young pianist. And it looks like there's there are a lot of adverse health effects, in addition to severe dental cirrhosis. And it turned out that the the technical support document for EPA proposed a maximum contaminant level goal was in fact, not written by any EPA scientists, it was contracted out to contractors. And so we said to the office director, we've just heard this seminar on fluoride toxicity. And we'd like the people who wrote that technical support document, to come to the agency and present a seminar and support their position. And we'd like to, we'd like to hear that. And the office director said, Oh, no, no, no, no, no, we're not going to do that. We followed the we follow the Administrative Procedures Act, we we put that technical support document in the Federal Register, there was an open comment period. And the comment period is closed, the status issue was closed. And so that's the end of that. We were in the Union were very unhappy to hear that. We were then we're also contacted by the Natural Resources Defense Council at this point, which had a lawsuit against the agency. Because the agency had already put into the Federal Register and did what's called an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in which they laid out the proposed maximum contaminant level goal of four milligrams per liter and the enforceable maximum contaminant level at the same, the same level four milligrams per liter and NRDC has sued the agency saying that these standards aren't protective of public health. And they came to the union and said, Would you guys like to join us in the suit filing amicus brief? If you guys will, right. The science will take care of all the legal stuff. And so we had a meeting and the Union voted to in fact, contribute to this. amicus curiae brief. Bob carton did 99 or so percent, I think of the writing of the science material. In that, in that amicus brief, the brief was was filed with the US District Court here in DC and

the court decided that they would not they would not allow the amicus brief To be fine entered into the into the docket because they said the union filing a brief would be in essence, like the agency suing itself. And we made the argument we thought of the good legal argument that the union the labor union was, in fact, the separate from EPA, we had separate legal standing from EPA, we were not a part of the Union was not part of the of the agency. We were chartered by a national labor union. But the district court said no dice, we're not going to art we're not going to let this amicus brief in at that point, especially Bob carton, again, as the lead started getting calls for help from people around the country, from I think some of the original calls were from out in the Midwest in Wisconsin, I believe, was the first one that came in saying, in essence, asking us to send somebody out there who could who could talk about fluoride toxicity and help us fight the proposals to put fluoride in our drinking water. We, the union leadership met, Executive Board met and decided that indeed, we would send Bob out there, if we could get, you know, someone to pay us airfare out there. And that's, that's what happened. And this sort of thing happened. You know, several times after that, we got it, we hit. We went to our national labor union, General Counsel went and asked them about accepting plane fare for these kinds of things. And he suggested that indeed, this was illegal. This This was okay, this was a an acceptable thing, because we weren't. We weren't taking any other kind of remuneration from them. It was simply paying expenses to travel out there. And so that's Bob took his took leave time to do this. The we were entered, we had entered into negotiations with the agency about this point. For a contract and one of the one of the prime things that we we want it to that we affect organize a union around was this issue of being able to do science with some degree of professional ethics. And so we had a one of the clauses in our, in our contract proposals was a professional ethics clause. And that we traded back and forth with the agency starting in 1980. By 1985, is when we started the negotiating negotiations. When Bob and I went into, start negotiating with the head of personality PA. So I asked us, they said, how do you how do you go about organizing a labor union at EPA? And we said, well, it really helps if you get somebody like And Gorsuch appointed as the administrator. The first administration of EPA that was appointed by Ronald Reagan was a really a convention of clowns if you will, starting with within Gorsuch as the administrator, one of the assistant administrators reader, Lavelle eventually went to prison for for some shady dealings that she carried out in, in, in California and and it was a very scary time. To be a professional with EPA, Doonesbury, during that time ran a series of cartoon strips depicting how scary it was at EPA. But at any rate, we eventually got into a problem with EPA and their indoor air quality when they installed some carpeting that made people sick and this eventually turned out to be a national problem. That other once it got into the media that EPA employees were sick in their headquarters buildings. This was during my first term as president, the telephone started to ring people calling in from the outside saying, gee, I'm sick, my wife is sick, the dog is sick, the kids are sick, what's going on? Can you tell us about it? We had that problem plus, we had a number of our people who, who became chemically sensitized and couldn't work in the building anymore. The long and the short of that is that we ended up having to spend a lot of time dealing with inquiries from the public and dealing with problems of employees, and not being able to work in the building. And management. First line managers went to upper management said, at that point, let me back up for a second, the union was operating on time us here on a on a clause in the labor law that said we could have official time for representational duties. And the first line management went to upper management and said, We don't we don't know how much work we can get out of all these union stewards who are having to deal with these other questions about the indoor air quality here. So let's, let's see if we can reach some agreement about that. When the carpet made us sick, I and a couple of other folks sat down basically did a risk assessment on the chemicals that were in the carpet and, and based on some literature that had come in to the agency from the University of Arizona, where this problem had arisen out there and Arizona poison control center was dealing with it. And so we laid out this risk assessment on on on the carpet said we we need to we need to do something based on this. Management looked at the risk assessment and said, Oh, wait a minute, we can't deal with this. And we're going to, we're going to let the Consumer Product Safety Commission take this problem over and we're not going to deal with it. And I said, the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn't have data like we have now on what's in the what's in the air here. What what chemicals are in the carpet, we've got all these data, and we should be doing it. And I said, No, we're not going to do it, because we don't want to get involved in lawsuits. And that's sort of set us off. At that point, by the way, we were at draft 13 of our principles of scientific integrity. And the agency immediately broke off negotiations on on ethics, negotiations with us. We eventually the agency tried to to try to scare us off of this problem. They threatened me with prosecution under a federal statute for representing representing people who work in government, which caused us to, let's see what's happening to my something's happening to the screen here. Let me

Clint Griess 28:36 It's okay. I'm taking your screen and just go ahead.

Dr. William Hirzy 28:41 At any rate, we, we got into there's AI and Gorsuch in some of that stuff.

But they, they in essence, we're trying to break the Union. At that time, we had, we had contact had contact with over. It was several 100 people and entities had contacted the union asking for help about this. And the agency said we were using official time to represent all these people. And we weren't we basically were providing information on what had happened to us. And so we went, we went to all these people and including people that we've helped on the fluoride issue and some of the people who are possibly participating in this conference call were among those. We asked them to write to their congressional representatives and and ask those congressional representatives to in turn, write letters to EPA and ask why they were trying to break this union that had been so much help to them. After about three months of that, when congressional letters kept coming into the EPA administrator's office in the general counsel's office than the system administrator for administration's office the agency I surrendered and came to us and said, What do you guys want? And so we we got some full time staffers in the union office and the ability to help people on the outside on official on official time in terms of doing responding to inquiries about our professional work. At that point around that time, the cancer bio essay on sodium fluoride came out and the the results on that cancer cancer bio assay and let me close out this photo montage here and go back to southern

Clint Griess 30:59 that shot of you getting a medal in 1955. In the Marines, that's something else.

Dr. William Hirzy 31:04 Well, I wasn't in the Marines at that time, I was a midshipman in the Naval Reserve. I was I was I was basically the equivalent of a of a have a midshipman at Annapolis at that point of my commission would have been in the regulars, not the reserves, but I was sworn into the naval naval services reserve midshipmen at that point. Let's see, let me there we go, we get this. But in 1990, the results of this cancer bioassay came out, and that looked like it was going to be the end of the line for water fluoridation. A year or so before that Betty Holman, who was a reporter for Chemical Engineering News, which is a neat weekly news magazine of the American Chemical Society did a very good feature article. I was, I don't know 20 or 30 pages of write up on fluoride and the history of fluoridation and the history of repression of people who are opposed to water fluoridation, and so forth, and so on. And mentioned the union and Bob Cardin in particular and Bill Coniglio. And then shortly after that, then the bioassay came out. And the findings were that sodium fluoride was a carcinogen and mail was a was a carcinogen was carcinogenic in male rats, which would have been the end of water fluoridation because EPA regulates known carcinogens with a maximum contaminant level goal of zero, which means you can't put any more of that stuff in the drinking water certainly wouldn't be putting in as much as four milligrams per liter of this stuff that which is carcinogenic. I happen to be attending a meeting at the American Association for Advancement of Science here in Washington during that time, and I was sitting in the front row of the second section there, and there was an aisle in front of me. And there were two, two fellows whose names I do not know. And they didn't obviously didn't know me or what my connection was with Union at EPA, and stopped in front of me, and we're talking about this cancer bioassay. And the phrase that sticks in my mind, I heard one of the guys say to the others, he said, Don't worry about it, we've got it under control. And shortly after that, there was a revisitation of the of the findings. And lo and behold, the findings were downgraded. And the way that happened was in detail was this. The the bio assay found three osteosarcomas in these in the male rats weren't in females and they weren't and then in the mice that in addition to these rare bone tumors, they found a rare liver tumor, hepatic pedicle angio carcinoma, which is an extremely rare liver tumor. And it was a relatively high incidence of this rare liver tumor of liver cancer in these mice. And it was on the basis of the liver, rare liver tumors and the osteosarcoma that the That's that the original toxicologist and the original reviewer recommended a finding of carcinogenic and male rats. Well, when the review took place, all of those rare liver tumors in the mice were downgraded from a from malignancies to benign tumors. And because they were no longer malignancies, the amount of cancer decreased, they couldn't make the osteosarcomas go away, those cancers were still there, and they couldn't they couldn't make them vanish like they did the liver tumors. And so that the classification was changed from carcinogenic and male rats to equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats. equivocal evidence means that there may be a causal relationship between exposure to the chemical and cancer development, which ought to be in in, in my view, ought to be enough to

cause people to say, wait a minute, you mean, there may be there is possibly a risk of bone cancer developing in these from exposure to this stuff. But you hear the pro fluoride people saying, well, there's no evidence of carcinogenicity in fluoride. Regarding this bone cancer stuff? Well, no, that's not true. There is, in fact, the federal government found that there may be a causal connection. Well, Bill Marcus was so ticked off at all that, that he had spent some time at the National Press Club talking about it, and he basically wouldn't keep quiet about it. And the agency didn't and trumped up some charges against him and fired. And there was a big fight over that. And and many, many people who are involved in the fluoride battle out there, across the United States, and maybe some people in other countries, I don't remember that aspect of it. But I know very many people here in the United States came to support NSA, as did the union. And ultimately, Marcus lawsuit against the agency was decided in his favor. But that was just one aspect of the agency protecting, protecting fluoride fluoride as a protected pollutant. And at that point, why don't why don't we plunge off into this presentation here, and I can fill in some other blanks about the work of Phyllis Mullenix. And, and some other folks, but okay, what I have, I can breathe.

Clint Griess 37:54 Thank you very much. Thank you. We're just going to take a little breather, though, because you've given us a lot of information to digest already. And we really appreciate it, I can tell you, this is the kind of detail that we need to learn about what really goes on in Washington DC. And, and thank you and the union for all the years of, of ethical scientific, standing for ethical science. And I'm going to actually interrupt our program here just a bit to hear from someone at the Florida Action Network. Stuart Cooper is the campaign director at Florida Action Network and very excited to have him on the phone today because he's got some news for us. He's got he's got an invitation, in fact for us all. So go ahead and say hello, Stuart. Hi. How's everybody doing? Good. You being here? Yes. Go ahead, Stuart. Your sound good.

Unknown Speaker 39:01 All right, Phil, you're doing a great job. I just wanted to before I'd actually network is pleased to officially announce that we will be hosting the fifth citizens conference on fluoride. This upcoming September 6 through eighth in Washington, DC. That's a Saturday for a Monday. And we have a lineup of great speakers already. Who have officially confirmed including Chinese for IQ researcher Dr. Zhang. Yong Yong, I hope I pronounced that correctly. Well known doctor and health guru Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Steven Peckham, of course, Dr. Paul Connett, and his son Attorney Michael Connett. And Dr. Hertie and Dr. Bill Hoskinson, as well as myself and the entire fan team, as well as more speakers that we will be announcing in the near future. So there's going to be an exciting conference, a lot of great experts. The conference will take place at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Crystal City, which is just minutes away from the nation's capital, and only minutes away from the Ronald Reagan International Airport, which has free transportation to the conference and is variable, very reasonably priced airport to fly into. We also have a very good discount hotel rate for attendees. So if you've always wanted to visit Washington, DC, now's the time because I don't think you're going to find a better lodging price. We're planning to have the scientific speaker sharing the latest research and science on fluoride on Saturday, followed by campaigning grassroots day on Sunday, where we will have speakers and panels on grassroots organizing and effective public fluoride policy change. And for those of you who can stay for Monday, we will have the first ever fluoride Lobby Day on Capitol Hill, where you'll have an opportunity to express your concerns about fluoridation with your senators and representatives and urge them to take action. So this conference will be will will give you an opportunity to meet and parents from around the world in person meet the entire fan team here from the latest science from the greater the biggest experts in the field. Be at the launch of an exciting new international action oriented campaign, the fan is going through announced as well as learn the most effective campaign tactics and gain access to fans latest advocacy resources. So we'd like as many of you to attend as possible. And we'll make it as economical as possible to participate. And for those of you in campaign groups, we urge you to start fundraising now to send at least one member of your organization to the conference, who can bring back this, this knowledge and bring back the materials we're going to be providing. So early this week, we will be publishing a webpage with all the conference details along with a link for registration. And this will be shared on our social media and our email bulletins as well as on our homepage. So please be on the lookout this information, start planning a trip to DC for September 6 through eighth. I hope to see you all there. Thank you.

Clint Griess 42:04 Okay, well, I'll be there. And I'm looking forward to having a link where I can register. So as soon as that's available, I will make sure to get it out to the international for free teleconference out audience as well. Well, thank you. Yes, thanks to you, too. So let's return to the discussion of the EPA and the industrial byproducts fluorosilicic acid, and where it comes from. Again, if you are following along with the application that you received in your confirmation email, you can watch the slides that Dr. Hersey has prepared for us. And they will all be made available for download along with an audio recording of today's teleconference tomorrow, so look forward to email from me with those links. So back to you Dr. Halsey.

Dr. William Hirzy 43:04 Okeydoke. Four Oh, hydrofluorosilicic acid is known as in a couple of other names including fluorosilicic acid, the abbreviated FSA, and that's the abbreviation that shows up. In the report from the US Geological Survey, which I uncovered a couple of years ago. The US Geological Survey writes reports on various minerals. And within the report for the mineral fluorspar, which is calcium fluoride. It was some very some little nuggets on the production of fluorosilicic acid. It used it is a byproduct from a phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and I'll show you flowcharts in just a little bit. Process flowcharts about where in the process it comes from. But it's used primarily for water fluoridation. It's also used in treating metal surfaces is a cleaner pH adjustment in textile processing and hardening of masonry and ceramics and sometimes is a a sterilant in brew tanks.

Interestingly enough in the US in the from the this is all information from the 2011 Geological Survey Report, listed three manufacturers of folic acid, JR Simplot company, mosaic fertilizer and TCS phosphate company and they operate five phosphoric acid plants for manufacturing Bring phosphate fertilizer in Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina and Wyoming. And in 2011, they produced 65,900 tons of 100% assay. Salicylic acid 100% assay means that's based on a 100% h2 si f6 formulation. Now what's sold as a commercial product is 24 to 25% assay. So that translates out by 264,000 tons of material used for water fluoridation. They've the company is valued the 65,900 tons of 100% assay at $12.1 million. I went after talking to a number of people about where the floor silicic acid they actually write checks for where the where the trucks come from that deliver it, it turns out that they, the the manufacturers themselves, don't so much deliver it, although one of them is does have a large number of distributors. There are 50 distributors listed by NSF incorporated NSF, international, I should say, NSF, as you may know, is the entity that to which EPA delegated the authority to write regulations dealing with de facto regulations dealing with the amount of contaminants present in water treatment chemicals that can be introduced into drinking water. And NSF has a website which is listed on the PowerPoint that is showing on the screen, and you can click on this link and it will take you to the list of distributors. There are over 50 of them listed on the website. It turns out that mosaic itself has 14 Different subsidiary distributor sites. Simplot and and PCs also do some distribution, but there are a whole lot of other smaller organizations that also distribute this stuff. The first flowchart that I have up here is the overall overview for phosphoric acid and related products, which includes phosphate fertilizers, to show where you know where this stuff comes from starting with the basic raw materials and phosphate ore is purified by some interesting techniques to relatively pure ore and sulfuric acid is manufactured by reacting sulfur with air and sulfuric acid basically and the phosphate

rock are put in a reactor and heated from that reactor. In this particular slide I I particularly wanted to show it because it shows the fact that uranium has been historically recovered from phosphate rock. And that's also one wonders about the how much protection that this particular process receives from the regulatory authorities in fact that one of our major sources of uranium, at least a significant source of uranium these days is from the manufacture of phosphate chemicals. Then the second flowchart then is a more detailed flowchart, showing how the super phosphate fertilizer is produced. And the upper left hand corner they show the phosphate rock coming into the plant, then being fed into a reactor along with poor phosphoric acid. That's the truth so called triple phosphate is when phosphate rock and phosphoric acid are reactive but you have the same kind of byproduct produced the acid whether it's sulfuric acid in the first first flow chart or phosphoric acid here in this flow chart, react with the phosphate or one of the contaminants in the phosphate or is is forespar is calcium fluoride. And so acid reacting with calcium fluoride produces hydrogen fluoride. There's also a lot silica, silicon dioxide as a an impurity in the in the ore, and the silicon dioxide reacting with hydrofluoric acid, HF appurtenances, silicon tetrafluoride silicon tetrafluoride and hybrid hydro hydrogen fluoride are both gases. And this flow chart then shows one of the outflows from that reactor going up to a scrubber and it's at that scrubber where the gases, silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen fluoride along with other other gaseous effluents are scrubbed out of the emission stream that eventually goes out into the ambient air. And it's the scrubber liquid from that particular step in the process that ends up in our drinking water supply. It turns out that something has come to me over the years and studying this issue that fluoridation especially as it's supported by EPA really doesn't have much to do with dental health fluoridation doesn't really have much to do to the people at EPA has to have to be able to read the same information that we have in terms of the efficacy of putting fluoride in drinking water. They they have available that that CDC publication from from 2001 that reported in which I have another slide on saying that fluorides action is primary, primarily topical and post eruptive, which means that the fluoride to do anything, if it does anything, it's after permanent teeth erupt. And it's what goes on on the surface of the tooth that has nothing to do with systemic exposure to fluoride. But what the fluoridation program has a lot to do with is that there's, you know, almost 300,000 tonnes and profit would have been about 300,000 tonnes in 2010, from the from the gross production, which was higher in 2010. But about 300,000 tonnes of hazardous waste would have to be managed in some other way

than going into a tank truck and coming up to your local water authority and being put into your drinking water system where then it goes out. And most of it flushes toilets and will goes down shower drains and washes clothes and dishes and waters lawns and puts out fires. And much less than 2% ever is ingested by anybody and much less than 1% ever gets into the mouths of children that were the original putative target of water fluoridation. The old theory of you had to get fluoride in the bloodstream in order to have it replaced the hydroxy groups and hydroxy apatite to make the tooth stronger and acid resistant. CDC backed off of that backed off of that theory, almost 15 years ago. So and the EPA has got to know that too. But I'll get to some more evidence of EPA defense of the water fluoridation program in a minute. But what really what's going on? Is it taxpayers in communities that by FSA are in essence subsidizing this waste management program. Your pay paying, you're paying good money to have an industry's toxic waste managed by dumping it into your drinking water supply and having it redistributed back out into the environment through you through our public water supplies. That's what it's all about. And EPA doesn't have to worry about these 300,000 tons of hazardous waste in terms of any regulatory or inspection issues. It's all taken care of by the water fluoridation program. And so you're subsidizing the industry, and the same time being exposed to an agent that's neurotoxic and it causes. Now EPA is aware of the fact that it causes damage to the nervous system. And it also is a carcinogen and are carcinogens inside FSA. The arsenic load that comes with FSA, commercial grade FSA is also an issue. Here's some some. This slide will talk a little bit about the the economics basically, the 665,900 tons translates to 100% s a translate to 600 or 200 264 tons of the commercial grade stuff in the An industry valued at at $12.1 million, or they valued it as being worth $45.83 a ton. Now, in actual fact, they could give it away. And in fact, this is virtually a giveaway. Because if they had to manage this as a hazardous waste, they would have to pay somewhere between about $1 and a half and $2 a gallon. To manage this stuff as a hazardous waste, then that would be all red ink. Instead, they get it they get the black ink aspect of this by being able to sell it for amounts ranging from $700 a ton more or less. Washington DC pays that to $2,300 a ton, which is what New York City paid in 2008. So what you're looking at is somewhere between 185,000,520 $8 million every year ching ching as profits, this is pure profit to the phosphate industry. The slideshows, somewhat lower profit figures because of subtraction or that $45 a tonne figure from it, but in fact, the pure profit is probably at least $200 million a year. Because of the avoidance of having to dispose of it as a hazardous waste.

Clint Griess 56:37 Just I just noticed that the slides refers to incorrectly 2001 This is actually 2011 data that we're looking at. Yeah, I'll make that correction and the

Dr. William Hirzy 56:49 thanks for caring.

Clint Griess 56:49 I think that was my mistake. Go ahead.

Dr. William Hirzy 56:52 But here's the letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for water Rebecca hammer, responding to an inquiry from a citizen. And I love this and in places where I've gone in the past and when I was teaching in American University, and I have always taught my students about fluoride issue. This paragraph just knocks people dead. In regard to the use of force silicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation this agency regard such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long standing problem. By recovering byproducts of salicylic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized. And water utilities have a low cost source of fluoride available to them. So you don't even have to read between the lines to realize if this if they didn't have that scrubber in line, and this stuff went out into the air, it would be an air. And if they took this scrubber liquid and discharged it into a water source, it would be a water pollutant. But if they put it into capture that scrubber liquor and put it into a tank truck and collect a big fat check for it, like magic, it's not a pollutant anymore. It's a product, even when it goes into your water supply and ends up back out in the river anyway, after having flush toilets and wash dishes and clothes and put out fires in the light. It's just so blatant, with a major interest of the agency here is that it doesn't have to worry about this huge amount of hazardous waste. Because of the revealed by the statement from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for water, who was deputy System Administrator back in 1983. And here's another example of EPA endorsement, underhanded endorsement of water fluoridation, which is not supposed to it's not. EPA is not supposed to consider benefits of contaminants when it's regulating these contaminants. But this is from their press release in jointly with the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2011, when they announced the recommendation change for the so called optimum level of fluoride from point seven to 1.2 milligrams per liter down to just point seven milligrams per liter. And then it says that EPA new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention. That's not your job, Peter, it's not your job to prevent tooth tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride. What what they're not pointing out there is that in fact they what they said earlier in that press release was there's so many sources of fluoride now available that we don't really need to get more fluoride from the drink as much fluoride from drinking water And they didn't say and the reason we found that out was that now 40% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, they didn't say that in the press conference, they just said, Oh, with there's so much other sources of fluoride from dental products and food and beverages and really believe that you don't need to get in water as as if changing from point seven to 1.2. Down 2.7 is going to is going to make any difference whatsoever. It's going to make virtually no difference at all. This is some cosmetic stuff, basically, for the CDCs parents organization. And for EPA to sort of back away from the fact this is the first time that any government entity has admitted there's any problem with fluoride, even though they don't say that the reason we're doing this is because the first signs of fluoride overexposure are now rampant in the population. They're just saying, well, we just you can still benefit from the prevent tooth decay prevention. And we're just going to avoid the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride is if this change is going to really make a difference. It's not Well, here's some more another aspect of toxicity from from FSA and our sodium salts sodium silicate fluoride this slide is from a work that was done by Richard moss and his co workers at the Environmental Quality Institute at the University of North Carolina. And what it shows is a result from experiments in which they put chlorine or chloramine or silica fluoride, or combination of chlorine and silica fluoride and water

in contact with in contact with plumbing fixtures, and measure the amount of lead that was leached out. And the slide shows that a chlorine alone leads in this particular control experiment leads to a concentration of about 13 or 14 micro grams of lead per liter. That chloramine by itself gives a concentration of lead of around 23 years old microliters micrograms per liter. And that silica fluoride by itself also leads to about 13 or 14 micrograms per liter. But the combination, which we have in here in the District of Columbia, and presumably in many other cities, which do not use quote gaseous chlorine anymore because of it's a very hazardous gas to be having, stored in a tank somewhere in the middle of a big city. chloramine is, is not a gaseous material. chloramines and silica fluoride together lead to about three times as much lead getting into the water supply as as silica fluorides by itself. So that was something that Roger masters and Mike Coburn have been working on trying to get cities to back off from the use of silica fluoride and see what happens to the blood lead levels in their in their kids. And in the water supply by doing that experiment, but so far, I know at least in Baltimore, where that presentation was, the proposal was made they decided they weren't going to do that. It's hard to figure why. Then this is some information now on a contaminant that's in FSA. And this This is a slide that's in taken from a publication that I my coworker said the American University had issued in this year in April of this year as a correction to a publication that we had last year in which I used erroneously annual figures for the cost of chemicals and lifetime figures for the amount of cancer that was caused. And so I submitted a correction in which I compared the calculated just the the annual cancer incidents that would be caused by hydrofluorosilicic acid are pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride and To the the first set of data show a typical level of of arsenic in FSA is around 30 to 35 milligrams per liter, which gives rise to a concentration of arsenic in drinking water of around point oh, seven, eight micrograms of arsenic per liter and using EPA risk numbers. That's about four and a half to five lung and bladder cancer cases a year in the current in the current in the current population that's exposed to got some interference coming through my through my computer's microphone here. Let's see if I can turn that off. At any rate, what you see here is that, that the first holistic acid and sodium fluoride there's a factor of about 100 fold difference in the amount of arsenic that you get about 100 times more arsenic and FSA as there is in the sodium fluoride, when you get it into water at half a milligram per liter of fluoride.

And that's reflected in about 100 fold difference in cancer incidents also show in this particular publication, what if people one of the, one of the things that I've noticed, trying to find out what the levels of arsenic are in different batches of hfsa, that that are that are sold? People will often say, Well, gee, all we got from the distributor from the manufacturer was it complies with NSF Standard 60? Well, the third line here shows what value the NSF Standard 60 is in protecting health. With respect to arsenic in drinking water, there could be as much as 380 parts per million of arsenic in the FSA, and still comply with standard 60. That would lead to around 59 Extra lung and bladder cancers a year in in the population, the current population of about 118 million people that are exposed to FSA. And if instead those people were having water that were fluoridated with sodium fluoride, there's only a one chance and 20 that anybody would get cancer. So the standard 60s is utterly useless as a protective measure in terms of arsenic contamination, from water, water fluoridation chemicals, and where that 380 milligrams per liter comes from is if you take the the maximum amount of, of arsenic they could be in drinking water from them past standard 60 would be point nine, nine milligrams, micrograms per liter. And the amount that's in FSA that has 30 Micro milligrams of arsenic per liter is point o seven, eight. So if you take point o seven, eight and divided into point, nine, nine, that's the ratio, the increase ratio. And if you multiply that, and by the 30, this should be 30 milligrams per meter. That's my mistake on here, you get 3030 380 milligrams of arsenic per kilogram of FSA would be would be permitted. I'm working on another another publication now that that goes into well, how much how much cancer is there in the current population? Because people have been drinking arsenic contaminated flow sulfuric acid. Since at least 1965. I was able to find in the CDC publications of fluoridation census statistics, the number of people exposed in 1965, the number of people exposed in 1967 75 and 8992. And they show up on this slide that I'm showing here. The number of people who were exposed during that during each one of those years to census So if you start out with basically 20, and a half million people exposed in 1965, and 24, almost 25 million in 1967, then the difference then is what I consider a newly exposed cohort. For 4,300,000 people were newly exposed to flow sulfuric acid and 67. In 1974, by 1975, there was an additional 26 million people exposed to it by 1989, there were another additional 25 million people more or less in 1992, another additional 3 million. And by 2010, I estimated by some means that I published in a previous publication about almost 38 million people and a new way. These are newly exposed cohorts. And I calculated then, based on the using the risk numbers that EPA published in their drinking water rule that was published on the Federal Register in January 2001. The what's called the population risk and applied it to do we expose cohorts and each of those years and calculated the amount of arsenic that would be present.

And I corrected how much how much cancer would there be in these in these cohorts, by by this year 2014? Well, the 1965 cohort, which started out at around 24 million people by 1965, has only got 13 point 9 million people in it. What I did was, I had I calculated the decrease in the cohort size each year by this standard mortality, which is used by the Department of Commerce. To that's about the standard mortality rate in a given cohort of people calculated the number of cancers and that decreased size cohort each year from 1965 through 2014. And the accumulated number of cancers in that original cohort would be 54 cancers among that original bunch that was first exposed in 1965. And they were the original bunch that was exposed in 1967, which was a smaller amount will only be 13 cancers in that bunch, and 75. In 1975, that new cohort with Get with it be having six total of 69 cancers by by this year, and so forth. So the total number of cumulative cancer cases and everybody who's been exposed to hfsa, since 1965, be about 200 people 200 cases of lung and bladder cancer are among the among those among that group of people and using the treatment costs that EPA used in the in the arsenic rule in 2001. Three and a half million dollars to treat a cancer case it comes out to about $700 million to treat those cancer cases. Now, I could not go back and calculate what the treatment cost for cancer was in 1965, or 1970, or 1980. It was, would have been much too complicated. So I kept everything in $2,001. And also applied that and to another calculation I'll show you in a minute. The bye week stay on this track, and continue to fluoridate with hfsa we could expect by the year 2020 That there will be about 2100 Extra lung and bladder cancer cases in those cohorts. And it will cost us around $7.3 billion to treat that extra lung and bladder cancer. If we started this year, using a different if people wanted to go away from using hfsa and use a different way of Florida fluoridating. If they wanted to still do that, which I'll describe in a minute. The you'll notice that the the amount of cancer increases very slightly because of sodium fluoride has a much lower cancer rate and the total number of cancer cases. If we switch this year to using low arsenic sodium fluoride would be about 1900 cases instead of 2100 cases, so we'd save about 200 lung and bladder cancer cases, and the treatment costs would be about a billion dollars less. But $700 million less. The message to take to the local government officials is that you can, you can do better by serving, you can serve our citizens better. In our three main public policy arguments that you can make for that there's more effective ethical and economic and economical ways to distribute fluoride, including bottled water and toothpaste. If people want to drink this stuff, it's on them. If they think it's, that's one of the major arguments that we've had all along is that this is forced medication on people who don't want it and don't need it. And

among these cancer cases, they're people who obviously have acquired lung or bladder cancer case, cancer from from drinking and stuff that didn't ever want to drink it in the first place. But there's a more effective ethical and economical way to distribute fluoride, if you want to do it that if you want to do it, the floor is a fluoride is a neurotoxin. And I'll show you some more information on that. impairment of intellectual development of all children is much greater concern than trying to use an agent which is not really all that effective in it's not effective, is it systemic preventive, dental caries. And evidence shows that you don't improve poor Children's Dental Health by by water fluoridation. This is this is a table that that Quint put together, summarizing in a very neat way. The alternative way of distributing fluoride using pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, right now, community water fluoridation uses hfsa. And most of it is, is wasted 98% of it ends up back in the river and never having touched anybody's mouth in the first place. So you're buying this stuff, and basically just using it just goes down the drain. If you provided fluoride in bottled water at point five milligrams of fluoride per liter, in two liters per person per day, 218 million people. That's the current number of folks who are drinking hfsa, fluoridated water, we're less all of it would be used. The ethical situation, this would be freedom to choose, you could you could get it or not get it. Government could make it available for free. Basically. community water fluoridation there's there's very little choice folks like myself and others who want to buy purification, I use a countertop distillation unit and myself. But not everybody is in a position to do that. There's there's little choice in that. In terms of economics. I estimated that probably at least $200 million a year annually is spent on buying hfsa. I said roughly 185 million. If everybody paid $700 a ton, it would be 185 million. But there's some communities that we I know, pay $2,000 or more a ton. So as a society, we're we're, we're we're paying $200 million a year to the phosphate industry, to let them dispose of their hazardous waste in our drinking water system. We're paying $200 million a year to be to do a favor for the phosphate industry to use our water supplies as a as a waste management tool. If if you were using pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, you could buy the amount of chemical that it would take to do that. This would be just the chemical costs but it's only $600,000 for supplying the fluoride for all the people who are currently drinking hfsa fluoridated water, obviously they have to be set up a distribution system, and there'd be some issues around that. So it would cost more than 600,000. But it would be much more ethical and an effective way to deliver this Chemical. And there's the comments on the efficacy issue that I know EPA is aware of it, and so are for the promoters of Fort fluoridation and fluorides. Kevin is prevention properties were originally attributed to changes in the enamel during tooth development. But now they're assessing up that, that if it's affected at all, fluoride prevents dental caries predominantly after we refer to the tooth into the mouth, and its actions are primarily topical, for both adults and children. In other words, after the tooth erupts, the high concentrations of fluoride in toothpaste is what's effective. Now, in terms of the neurotoxicity in kids, this is this is

a, a slide showing the bell shaped curve of IQ distribution across a population. And it shows the how the average, everyday IQ peaks at 100 IQ points. And if we shift that peak down, five points to 95. If the average becomes 95, what happens in the population? Well, what happens in the population is you lose, and a very big chunk of bright extra bright people have fewer geniuses and fewer really bright people to make the community function. And what you're going to get in exchange for losing all those bright people is a larger number of people who are mentally handicapped who have IQs below 70 And are become Ward's of the of the of the state as it were and and with all the problems that are associated with not being able to make good decisions and with not being able to function with a reasonable IQ. That's, that's that's the impact. Five IQ points in an individual person might not might or might not be noticeable, but in a population, it is going to be noticeable and have a substantial impact. And that's something that we should be paying attention to. This is a clip from the lancet article was published online last month or may actually in April, I think, by two big names in public health, Philip Landrigan and Philippe Grandjean. And they've added fluoride to the list of neurotoxic elements that we need to worry about in terms of developmental neurotoxic toxicity. That is that affects the development of intellect in children. Now, there's been a publication within the last month in New Zealand by Sela broadband is a big promoter of fluoridation. And it claims in the article to put the rest of the canard that fluoride causes neurotoxicity or that it affects negatively affects the intelligence of children. And this is the data that he uses to show that this is a table taken directly from broadband publication. And I'll point out why broadband paper is little or no math actually have no value in resolving the issue of IQ loss. He classifies fluoride exposure in three ways. Area of residence whether children lived in a community fluoridated water area are never lived in a community water fluoridation area. And the IQs of those two different cohorts were 100.0 and 99.8. And he says, look at that there's no difference whether they lived with whether it was community water fluoridation or not. Now the first thing that you need to notice about that is that the number of people who were in the water fluoridation area was 891 and the number of who'd never lived in a water fluoridation area was only 99. So there's a very small cohort here. Then he also classifies by whether people have always sometimes or never used fluoridated toothpaste. And again, the differences in IQ are minimal 100.2 For always 98 98.74 sometimes and 900.2 for never and a relatively small number of people who have never used fluoridated toothpaste Then we come down to fluoride tablets yes or no? At age five, where have you taken fluoride tablets by age five, yes or no. And those who did take fluoride tablets, 100.2, IQ and 99.7 for those who didn't take fluoride tablets. Now the problem with this is of the people who never lived in a water fluoridation area, there are 99 of them.

There are 139 people who took fluoride tablets. Now, how many of these 99 people who never never lived in a water fluoridation area, in fact, fluoride tablets, they could easily all have been in this 139 People who had the fluoride tablets because their parents knew that they were living in an area that didn't have fluoride in the drinking water, and so they gave them the tablets instead. Likewise, the large number of people who use fluoridated toothpaste, always fluoridated toothpaste delivers somewhere between around point one, five 2.25 milligrams a day of fluoride, which is not an insignificant amount of fluoride. The the bottom line here is that, that he doesn't have any really good, low fluoride controls anywhere in this kind of classification. You can't make any any calls about how much fluoride so the differences in IQ that he reports or the if the actual IQ values reports are essentially meaningless. So we come down to now another efficacy issue. Next, this next slide, which will appear in three different

I will impose another slide on top of this and another slide on top of this. But what this first slide shows is that the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, plotted in terms of the percentage of each state drinking water systems that are fluoridated, and they range from about 1%, up to 100%. A couple of couple of entities here have 100%, water fluoridation and the District of Columbia is one of those. Then, if he what's plotted here now is this is low income children. From the National Survey of Children's Health, which unfortunately, these this particular link that shows here now is not active. I recently, in fact, in the last two days went back to try to get into some CDC websites that I use to get the data on number of people who are exposed to hydrofluorosilicic acid, and those websites are down. Now. One could have put one's paranoid chews on and say, well, CDC is taking down data that people could use to attack the efficacy of water fluoridation. Well, yeah, it could be could be all I know is that those those websites are gone. So the data are not there. But here's the basically what this shows is that the percentage of low income kids who have good very good or excellent teeth, basically tracks right across here, and there's, there's no relationship, one would think that water fluoridation were causing a beneficial effect. One would see a gradual rise in the in the number of kids with very good or excellent teeth. And in fact, I calculated the averages in the standard deviation for all these data points. And the average of the percentage of low income kids with good or excellent teeth is around 54. And the standard deviation is pretty big. It's 8.2. Now you plot the number of high income kids with very good or excellent teeth. And the first thing that leaps out at you is as much higher percentage of those kids have very good or excellent teeth, in fact that the average is 83 Compared to 54 for low income kids. So right away, what jumps out at you is the difference in dental health has a whole lot more to do with with socio economic status than it does with water fluoridation status because here's the water fluoridation status. And, and one would think there would be some changes here that perhaps these numbers would have been lower, but they're not. And another thing that pops out is So the standard deviation here is very small for the high income kids, which means, once again, it implies at any rate one one of the one of the inferences you can draw from this is high income kids have access to good access to dental care. And so that's one of the reasons that the, that they're averaging a very high percentage with good or excellent teeth. And that there's not very much variation here, because the because they're, they're getting good dental care. And, and there you have it. So water fluoridation doesn't have any impact actually, on the on the number of kids with good or excellent teeth, whether you're wealthy or not. So if you it's a conclusion that I drew from from that, from that from these, from all these data, if you want to serve your community the best, instead of paying 1000s of dollars to the phosphate industry for the privilege of its depositing of depositing of its waste in your drinking water system. And thinking that you're helping poor kids to have better teeth. Even in spite of evidence from the CDC to the contrary. You should worry more about the kids intellectual deficits that occur from fluoride ingestion, excess fluoride, all all those kids now with 40 or more percent in a given community with with dental cirrhosis, that's overexposure to fluoride, what what the impact on intellectual deficits caused by fluoride, what the impact of those intellectual deficits have on on the community

that these kids are, are, have lower IQs have lower reasoning ability, make poor decisions, that can have a very big impact on the community. If you want to spend money on dental health, spend it on educating, education in in great schools, there are programs is a very good program that's operating in Scotland, where there are other places where brushing, brushing, and brushing teeth is is emphasized. And minimizing the exposure to sugar, and other agents that cause erosion in the teeth, there are ways to really get at better dental health. In addition, it also seeing that your kids get have some access to good dental care, support the poor in your community. So don't throw your money away. Buying hazardous waste from the phosphate industry and think that you're doing some good for poor kids, because you're not. So your industry approval from builders. Thank you. Take any questions?

Clint Griess 1:33:10 Yes, we'll be definitely opening up the lines for some question and answer you've given us so much information. So you know, folks get ready to ask your questions. Really, it's open, open ended whatever area of interest you want. Before we do that, I just want to make a couple of announcements for upcoming events. The monthly teleconference will happen again in July and fall goes well. That will be the second Saturday again, in July, which is July 12. So expect an invitation for that and an opportunity to register online. Please, for everyone who registers for for the July teleconference, I'd like to ask you just to invite two more people to join. And so the request really is to register yourself and then get to more people to register to. And then another event that I'm holding this summer, just two weeks from today is a mixer. So six months ago in the wintertime, as some of you may have been there, we did a social mixer of international fluoride free teleconference activists from all over the world who just wanted to get together and it's very casual. It's just an opportunity to meet folks from around the world. Talk about whatever is important to you in in that one hour event on June 28. I will break folks up into small groups so you can talk and we'll do three or four rounds of small group discussions and give you a chance to just mix with some like minded people from all over the world. So expect an invitation for that as well. That'll be the International Forestry teleconference summer mixer June 28. And then I just want to ask for donations for the teleconference. The teleconference costs each month are $150. So that covers the teleconference system that you're you're using today. Together with the visual displays, it also pays for the email service that gets the word out to looks like we have about 1000 people on the email list nowadays. And as well as the file sharing document download site that allows me to provide you all with the documents that come along with the presentations. So if there's someone out there like to raise your hand and claim, a, make a promise of a donation, I'd appreciate it, you can publicly declare your your promise to donate and then I'll get back to you with the details about that. You're all welcome to reply to me by email, if you have an interest in donating, or your contribution to the teleconference could simply be your your feedback. So I'm very interested to hear from you all, as well about how it's going for you what you appreciate about it, what you'd like to see in the future. And so either way, if you want to contribute cash, that's going to help us keep going every month. And if you want to contribute your ideas, and your feedback, that's also very valuable. So if there's anyone out there who'd like to raise your hand and be publicly recognized, I will do that right now. And short, so that. Okay, Dr. Jim Maxi, a dentist from Tulsa has been very generous in supporting the teleconference a couple of times already. And I thank you, again for raising your hand one more time. Any amount is is okay. From $10 to $150. It's really up to you. So thank you all for listening to the announcements and my request for donations. We will get into some question and answer period. I know you have a lot of questions. So all you need to do is press the one on your keypad to raise your hand. If you want to ask a question. I will give you the mic. And Dr. Halsey will answer your question. Okay, let's go to all the Mara Peters. Go ahead.

Mara Peters 1:37:27 Hello, can you hear me?

Clint Griess 1:37:29 Hi, we can hear you. Where are you from?

Mara Peters 1:37:31 I'm in Redmond Washington.

Clint Griess 1:37:34 Wonderful. Thanks for being on the call today.

Mara Peters 1:37:37 Oh, thank you. I'm hoping we got my mailing a couple of weeks ago.

Clint Griess 1:37:42 Yes. Oh, Mr. Of is very generous to contribute to the teleconference. Thank you very much.

Mara Peters 1:37:48 You are welcome. Having Dr. Hertzian is a great celebration for me. I wanted to ask you, you said you were going to say a little about Phyllis mullinax. I would love to hear your whatever update about her work and the work of second look.

Dr. William Hirzy 1:38:08 Well, Phyllis, just I just reviewed a paper that Phyllis has gotten published now on contaminants that appear in the fluoridation chemicals, there's apparently a lot of some considerable amount of cross contamination that occurs with among the water fluoridation chemicals, and in fact, or maybe contamination with other substances that occurs during shipment of these things. When I said let's say more about Phyllis monex, probably would be what I was thinking about at the time was her publication on the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride that also points toward developmental neurotoxicity in that pregnant females who were exposed to fluoride that that gave them serum levels of fluoride that were equivalent to human serum levels. People drinking water at what the current MCL G is at four milligrams per liter, the those pregnant female rats gave birth to pups that were hyperactive at birth, and they remained hyperactive for life. So the if one applied the standard risk assessment safety factors to the fluoride levels that that those pregnant female rats got, you would see that the levels of fluoride that we are exposed to now are not safe and could conceivably be contributing, especially if The pregnant women are have an exceptionally high amount of exposure to fluoride could be contributing somewhat to the amount of ADHD that is showing up in kids and maybe some other kinds of developmental neurotoxic effects.

Mara Peters 1:40:20 Yes. Yes, that was a wonderful piece of it. And I would love it if more people in this society were paying attention. That reminds me, as you mentioned about the rats, your earlier description of one of the first studies you've at first said rats, and then you said mice

Dr. William Hirzy 1:40:47 the, the, the cancer bioassay was done on rats and mice. You had the, in that NTP bio assay was found to be carcinogenic in male rats. That was the original finding, but not carcinogenic, in female rats, or an either sex of the mice. I think that was the time that I used. I referred to my

Mara Peters 1:41:14 Okay, thank you. Thank you for clarifying that.

Clint Griess 1:41:21 Thanks for your question. I'll Amara and Dr. Halsey, you said that the one cancer that showed up was a rare cancer. When you say it's a rare cancer? What does that mean? Do you mean it's rare to find it in a laboratory toxicological study? Or do you mean it's rare in humans? What does that mean exactly?

Dr. William Hirzy 1:41:41 Well, it's rare and rare in the mice, excuse me. I know don't know much about the incidence of that cancer in humans, but it was extremely rare in mice. And as an In fact, the pathologist who first discovered that that particular tumor. So Dr. Mel Reuber. was conferred with, with Bill Marcus about this and rubra was not real happy with the downgrading of those tumors either. So it is it was quite, quite rare in mice for that tumor to develop. And so once the

Clint Griess 1:42:30 well yes, just as a novice, you know, I think that the the importance of that tumor showing up with that mouse is for that rat is that it might show up in humans too. And then which case? If fluoride was causal, if it causes that particular cancer, then wouldn't we expect to see it in the human population?

Dr. William Hirzy 1:42:52 It's not, it's not always there's not always a concordance between the sight of carcinogenesis in animals in humans. As I said, I don't know what the incidence in humans is the incidence of osteosarcoma in humans is very, very low. For instance, in but the incidents that showed up in in those in those mice arm in those rats slipping into mouse again, the incidence in the rats was quite high. And in fact, I had statistician at EPA calculate what the what the what the risk characterize the risk to humans based on on that rate of incidence in those in those rats. And it would be one in 1000. That is to say, one in 1000. People drinking water at one milligram per liter would be expected to develop osteosarcoma and we don't see anything like that. As a osteosarcoma rate, it's very low I it off the top of my head. I don't have it. I didn't know that number in the past, but it's an extremely rare tumor in humans.

Clint Griess 1:44:20 Okay. Well, great. Thanks for that clarification. I'm gonna get some more questions going here. Karen Boyer in San Francisco Bay Area. Welcome.

Karen Boyer 1:44:31 Hello. Yes, I'm curious about the EU the distribution system going to the cities, and all of a sudden now they're not responsible for what they put in the water. Why is that what happens? You know, there's the Clean Water Act, but the EPA is responsible only to industry is that I'm not sure how to outline this diagram.

Dr. William Hirzy 1:44:57 Well I I'm not sure about your question the the distributors simply take the product from the manufacturer and sell it to the seller to the cities now, in terms of legal liability that distributor has for any toxic effect. i That's a question for a lawyer. And I, I simply don't know the answer to that one. So that

Karen Boyer 1:45:30 goes from that the phosphate industry, the EPA intervenes to prevent that from polluting our public water. But if they sidetrack it, and sell it, cities, they can turn around and put it in the water with no risk.

Dr. William Hirzy 1:45:52 Oh, well, okay, I can I can explain that the the level that would be discharged from the manufacturing site would be would be high enough that it would exceed the so called effluent limitations. The there's a limit to the concentration of fluoride that can be put into drinking water and the amount that's produced in a a phosphate plant of a phosphate fertilizer plant is so high that if it were discharged into a local waterway, it would exceed the exceed the limit there's no what EPA is set as a safe drinking water level is is way below what the effluent limitation and I can I can call up on my PowerPoint but see I have

to do to do let me open up like over to here I can basically I can tell you what the effluent limitation for fluoride is.

Here Okay, let's see statutes airborne airborne emissions to water emissions, effluent limitations the maximum the maximum is 25 milligrams of fluoride per liters that daily maximum and 25 milligrams of fluoride per liter is a monthly average maximum for phosphate fertilizer manufacturing operations. So that's way above what is the maximum contaminant level enforceable maximum contaminant levels for four milligrams per liter so

they could put it in at four milligrams per liter and it would still would not violate putative these these limitations are set based on protecting aquatic ecosystems, the the biota, in the receiving water is what this what this is set for. Obviously, someone couldn't be drinking water.

Karen Boyer 1:49:01 So really, when we perceive our San Francisco Bay, in some of the Sacramento River, all that fluoride is going in there, but it's really such a low level, it's not harming anything, except if you're referring to the Columbia River. Hmm. Is that how it works? Well,

Dr. William Hirzy 1:49:21 I wouldn't say it's off the top of my head that it's not harming anything but the amount that's the amount that's coming from the from sewage treatment plants. Theoretically, it's not going to be any higher than what the amount coming into your water supply would be in the event. In fact, it would probably be somewhat less because of dilution from rainwater runoff and that's that sort of thing. But it's fluorites can be toxic to salmonid fish. I mean, I forget now what the what the level is that has been shown to make fish. Salmon make salmon dumb enough that they won't. They won't use fish ladders for instance. And I forget now what the number is it may very well be close to one milligram per liter, but I don't know for a fact. That's the value.

Karen Boyer 1:50:23 Hey, thank you, Dr. Halsey.

Clint Griess 1:50:26 Oh, you're welcome. Thank you, Karen. Let's get a question from Dr. Richard Sauer Haber. Go ahead, Richard. Yeah. Hi. Thank you for the presentation is very good. Very good. My main question, I have two of them. But the main one is, you know, the Mullenix new article, the prove that that many of these pusillus batches after they're diluted to an N 50,000 fold, still produced about a quarter of ppb of arsenic in the final product drinking water. So I'm wondering, I mean, an opinion letter from Rebecca Hanmer does not invalidate the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. So I'm wondering what the real holdup is? That's preventing the EPA from banning the intentional infusion of arsenic into public drinking water. One a one a human certain question you don't like you mentioned? Yep. wouldn't waste preventing them from doing?

Dr. William Hirzy 1:51:27 Well, what's preventing it is that the maximum the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level is 10 parts per billion is 10 micrograms?

Clint Griess 1:51:37 Well, I realize that but I thought you mentioned earlier in your talk, that it was illegal, really to intentionally add any certain known certain human curses. At any concentration,

Dr. William Hirzy 1:51:48 it's not illegal. It's it's not against the law. It's just that it's is it that level is not a level that will prevent any known or anticipated adverse effect on health. The EPA s and the methodology that I used in my 2013 and 2014 paper is assumes a no threshold level for carcinogenesis. So even at point, point o seven, eight micrograms per liter, that would, that would cause as I said, in 118 million people that cause around five cancers a year lung and bladder cancer, so it's EPA knows that, that that is very, very low level 100 of the MCL was still caused cancer. So they they know that, but it's not against the law.

Clint Griess 1:52:54 Well, anyway, you could again,

Dr. William Hirzy 1:52:56 it's against any kind of ethical consideration. It's not against the law.

Clint Griess 1:53:01 Yeah, well, at least you could point out that the mole index data shows that it's point two five ppb so that's quite a bit higher than

Dr. William Hirzy 1:53:08 can't be that can be that I realized that. And then the second point, one, five is the average that was found over the last couple of years is already point one, five.

Richard Sauerheber 1:53:24 Yeah, the other question I had is we have a petition to ban fluoridation with the FDA that's been under review for about seven years. They're still considering it, but we're trying to get them over the edge. And I was wondering if you could send them or get someone from the EPA to write to them, because they keep trying to get out of it by saying that EPA should be regulating water fluoridation, but the EPA will not regulate or monitor water fluoridation. And I'm trying to drive that point home with the FDA myself. And it's pretty difficult. If there was a way to get somebody to write to the FDA in support of that petition from the EPA, that could really help.

Dr. William Hirzy 1:53:58 that'll that'll never happen, because EPA doesn't want to have to deal with the 300,000 tons or still have hazardous waste whether it has to go somewhere.

Clint Griess 1:54:10 But Isn't there someone at EPA union, if it goes into our drinking water supply? Isn't there someone in the EPA union or even you yourself that can write well, I

Dr. William Hirzy 1:54:24 contact me offline the union anymore is not as interested in this issue, as when I was an officer there, but you contact me offline and we can we can talk about this. Okay. But basically, FDA doesn't doesn't have a role in FTAs role is in regulating fluoride in bottled water, for instance, but not in not in public water supplies.

Clint Griess 1:54:55 Yeah, well, they've informed us that they're thinking about going into water because As I've sent convincing evidence that the EPA refuses to regulate water fluoridation, and they know no one's regulated, no federal agency is regulating it right now. No one's evaluating the effectiveness, the effectiveness and everything. Okay, thanks. That's right. Thank you, Richard very much. I'm trying to get one more calling from Anna Felton in Ireland. Are you there? Anna?

Anna Felton 1:55:24 Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can? Yes. Thanks

Clint Griess 1:55:27 for staying up too late there.

Anna Felton 1:55:29 Oh, my goodness. I am you can't believe it. I can't believe I'm still awake. I'm exhausted. But anyway, I don't really have a question. I'm just finding it fascinating. And want to thank you and doctor has in all your contributors. It's a wonderful project. And I just have great hopes that things are moving. And this will finally and eventually be revealed for that. Do you pity that it is? So thank you, again, I put my hand up to make a donation not to ask a question, but that was why I raised my hand.

Dr. William Hirzy 1:56:13 I understand if the Irish Greens get political power, that'll be the end of fluoridation in Ireland.

Anna Felton 1:56:21 I'm agreeing, we blew our chance when we joined in with one of the major parties and we have lost all credibility Now, unfortunately, so. And yes, it's all sorts of intricacies that we have to jump through hoops to be jumped through, it would be lovely. There are a lot. There is a lot going on cross party lines in the southwest violence in County Cork. There are huge numbers of county councilors who are anti fluoride, and have put resolutions that have been passed. And so there's a huge, huge, huge movement here. And it's just take See, I had to find a click into place to turn off that switch.

Mara Peters 1:57:08 I think that we do have

Anna Felton 1:57:11 Sorry. Go ahead. We do have a law and by law, we have mandatorily we have to offer a theory data water since 1964. So it can be turned off this year. It is 50 years and that would be a great celebration.

Dr. William Hirzy 1:57:31 It certainly would be and I'm hoping that this this these new data on on developmental neurotoxicity may be the straw that breaks the back of that. Yeah.

Anna Felton 1:57:42 And all credit to jacket and wool. And to Ashlyn Fitzgibbons their work has been prodigious.

Clint Griess 1:57:50 Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you, Anna, thank you very much. Thank you for those good wishes.

Anna Felton 1:57:55 You're welcome. And yeah, good luck to everyone. Thanks, everyone. Good night.

Clint Griess 1:58:02 Good night. Yes. So that brings to the close our monthly teleconference. Thank you again, Dr. Halsey, for your wonderful presentation is now on record. An audio recording has been made and everything you've said is now available for everyone to download. And I want to let everyone know that as soon as this teleconference ends, there were there were immediately begin an opportunity for you to be in conversation with folks who have been on the teleconference and in small breakout groups, just a casual setting. After after those people who choose to hang up, hang up, just take a minute, just hanging out and you'll be automatically put into a breakout room with three or four other people. And that will allow you just to hang out you'll be unattended and you can talk as long as you want. Make sure to exchange contact information. If you meet people that you want to stay in contact with. Please do that. And I guess we'll be talking again in two weeks at the Summer mixer and a month from now on July 12 For the next teleconference. So thanks to everyone again and goodbye

Transcribed by https://otter.ai