JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
February 15, 2013
LEAD BULLETS, LEAD AVGAS, LEAD PAINT, LEAD PIPES, LEAD WATER
It is odd that in the 21st century we are still contaminating water, air, and hunted food animals with bullets made out of lead. (See “Gun range under fire over lead exposure”, Seattle Times, 2-14-2013.) There are good alternatives. Shooters should follow the Army’s lead and switch to lead-free “green bullets”.
In 1977 we mostly banned lead paint (which is sweet to a toddler’s taste), and most of it has been painted over and sealed in. So we hope that it is not as great a problem as it was in the 1970s. I say we mostly banned lead in paint because it is still used in some states in road paint, and lead free paint can still be up to 9 ppb lead.
There is a forgotten side to the lead story. From the 1920s into the 1970s our air was poisoned by tetraethyl added to gasoline. In the 1970s TEL was phased out. It turned out that all along ethanol had been just as good as TEL in preventing knocking. Promoters of TEL had known this and lied to sell their product.
When leaded gasoline was banned, a loophole was carved out for aviation gas, commonly known as Avgas. Many propeller driven planes still burn avgas, and they spew lead down on us as they fly overhead. Most piston driven planes can be made to run just as well on other gasoline mixtures, and those which cannot should get new engines.
The most ignored and possibly the most significant source of lead is our tap water. Simplot, the company which supplies the particular type of dental additives which Seattle injects into our water, admits that it contains lead, and NSF, the quasi-agency which regulates water additives admits it contains up to 1.1 ppb lead, which using Avagadro’s math equals around 6.4 trillion atoms of lead per quart of water.
It gets worse, much worse, because the dental additives are effective lead solvents, and there is a lot of lead in Seattle plumbing. There is lead in old service lines (street to house), in brass-lead pipes, in galvanized pipe (which absorbs lead from lead service lines), in the solder used on copper and brass pipe, and in virtually all water faucets (Washington considers 8% lead to be “lead free”).
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported in 2004 that lead had been found in Seattle schools at up to 1,600 ppb. This is an astonishing level. The EPA action level is 15 ppb, and the EPA goal is zero. 1,600 ppb equals 1.6 ppm, which is twice the current .8 ppm level of the dental additives themselves.
The chemistry is basic. Dental additives leach lead. Once in the body, lead is hard to excrete. “Lead as metal ion irreversibly binds sulfhydryl groups on proteins, including both structural and enzymatic proteins”, says Dr. Sauerheber. When Tacoma stopped adding dental additives in 1992, lead levels dropped dramatically. Lead damages the brains of fetuses and babies most of all because their cells are still dividing.
It is politically incorrect to oppose injecting dental additives to drinking water. Politicians avoid the issue out of fear of the well-funded, well-organized, but scientifically uninformed pro-additives dental lobby.
Nevertheless, it is an indisputable fact that the dental additives used right now in Seattle contain not only lead but also arsenic, mercury, cadmium, barium, and thallium (which is slightly radioactive).
If we are really serious about lowering blood lead levels, we need to focus on all sources of lead. Lead bullets, lead plumbing, lead paint, lead avgas, and lead dissolving drinking water dental additives should all be outlawed. There are better ways to shoot guns, fly airplanes, and plumb a house. And there are better ways to protect teeth, such as diet and dental cleaning education, basic dental and cleaning services, supplementing vitamin D, and not eating sugar.
See documentation for all assertions made at www.leadoutofourwater.wordpress.com.
Sincerely,James Robert Deal, Attorney WSBA Number 8103
LEAD AND DENTAL HEALTH
Did anyone ever tell you that lead ingestion contributed to dental caries? No one ever told me.
Enamel biopsies taken from school children in a community where exposure to lead was a health hazard were analyzed for lead and fluoride. The children with high enamel lead had significantly higher caries scores than the children with low enamel lead, in spite of the fact that the high lead group also was higher in enamel fluoride. There was no increase in enamel lead with age. The lead in saliva was only a fraction of that in blood. Infants with lead poisoning showed higher saliva lead than a normal infant.
See, “Lead in Enamel and Saliva, Dental Caries and the Use of Enamel Biopsies for Measuring Past Exposure to Lead”
The fluoride in their teeth did not prevent the caries.
Lead is passed on from mother to child. The child doesn’t necessarily have to ingest the lead. It can be transferred by the mother to her offspring, just like fluoride.
See “Association of Dental Caries and Blood Lead Levels” in JAMA.
“Blood lead level and dental caries in school-age children”
“Mean blood lead level was significantly greater among the urban subgroup, as was the mean number of carious tooth surfaces. Blood lead level was positively associated with number of caries among urban children, even with adjustment for demographic and maternal factors and child dental practices.”This study suggests that the fluoridation of water can lead to higher lead levels:
“Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead”
“Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. The highest likelihood of children having VBL> 10 microg/dL occurs when they are exposed to SiF treated water and subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead (e.g., old housing).”
HISTORY IS ON THE SIDE OF FLUORIDE OPPONENTS
Portland is one of two U.S. cities that have resisted fluoridationIf fluoridating Portland’s water supply is such a bad idea, then why is almost every other large U.S. city doing it?
But if it’s such a good idea, why hasn’t the rest of the world followed suit?
Both questions could dog critics and supporters alike as Portlanders ponder whether to fluoridate the city’s Bull Run water supply in a May 21 referendum.
Portland and Honolulu are the lone holdouts among the nation’s 50 largest cities. Tucson, El Paso, Colorado Springs and Jacksonville rely on naturally occurring fluoride in their water; the rest of the cities add it to the water, according to the British Fluoridation Society.
Two other cities that long resisted fluoridation — San Diego and San Jose — agreed to fluoridate their water supplies in 2011. The Portland City Council joined them last September, but critics gathered signatures to force the May vote. The project is on hold at least until then, says David Shaff, Portland Water Bureau administrator.
Fluoridation is not new in Oregon. Beaverton, Forest Grove and part of the Tualatin Valley Water District do it, as does Salem and several other Oregon cities.
But Oregon, like Portland, is bucking the national trend. Only 23 percent of Oregonians get fluoride added to their water supply, the third-lowest level among the states. The only states with lower rates are Hawaii, at 11 percent, and New Jersey at 14 percent, according to the British Fluoridation Society.
Fluoridation supporters used a stealth lobbying campaign last year to press the issue among Portland city commissioners, because local voters have been skeptical in the past.
City voters rejected fluoridation in 1956 and again in 1962. The third time was a charm when the City Council put a measure on the ballot in 1978, but critics qualified a repeal measure for the May 1980 ballot and voters turned down fluoridation a third time. Fluoridation doesn’t divide voters on the left and right as in typical elections, says Howard Pollick, a leading fluoridation advocate who teaches at the School of Dentistry at the University of California at San Francisco.
“The people promoting it primarily have been the medical and dental professions, because they see the devastation from teeth decay,” says Pollick, who also conducts research on the issue.
In the 1950s, he recalls, opposition was led by the right-wing John Birch Society, which called fluoridation a “Communist plot.” Present-day opponents include a mix of libertarians, conservatives, environmentalists and alternative health proponents.
Portlanders, at least up to now, haven’t been a “bunch of sheep” like voters elsewhere in the United States, says Paul Connett, a retired Lawrence University chemistry professor and a leading fluoride critic.
Portland is “in the mainstream of the world,” says Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network. “It’s not in the mainstream of the U.S.”
The British Fluoridation Society calculates that 204 million U.S. residents get fluoride from their water supply, or 74 percent of the population, all but 10 million of them because it’s added to the water supply.
That’s more than half the 378 million people worldwide that drink fluoride added to their water, the society estimates.
Two dozen other countries add fluoride to their water. In Great Britain, about 10 percent of the population, or 5.8 million, get fluoridated water. In Australia, 80 percent of the population, or 17.6 million, get fluoridated water. In Canada, it’s 14.3 million, or 44 percent. In British Columbia, the province closest geographically and culturally to Oregon, only 4 percent drink fluoridated water.
Other significant users of fluoridated water are Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Israel, Chile, Brazil and Malaysia.
Factors vary on why fluoride has or hasn’t been adopted from city to city and country to country, Pollick says.
In Italy, for instance, so many people drink bottled water that fluoridating the public water supply wasn’t seen as useful.
Local critics, like former state director of the American Cancer Society Rick North, says Europeans have opposed fluoridation partly out of concern that it’s administering a “drug” to people without their informed consent.
Limited use in Europe
Critics like to point out that only a tiny portion of Europeans get fluoride added to their water: just 14 million people, mostly in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Spain.
While more U.S. cities are jumping on the water fluoridation bandwagon, several prominent nations have jumped off. The list of countries that once fluoridated their water supply but stopped doing so includes the Soviet Union, Japan, the German Federal Republic (West Germany); Sweden, the Netherlands, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany): Czechoslovakia and Finland.
“It’s been an absolute dismal failure outside of the U.S., outside of a handful of countries, mostly English-speaking,” Connett says.
One reason for the disparity is that fluoridation got its start in the United States. Grand Rapids, Mich., became the world’s first community to add it to the water supply in 1945. (See sidebar). The movement has spread slowly but surely across the nation since then.
“There’s nothing specific to Europe that makes them wiser or less wise than here in the U.S.,” Pollick says.
Several European nations prefer other methods. Germany, France, Austria and Switzerland put fluoride in salt, much like the U.S. puts iodine in salt. European nations also promote the use of fluoride in toothpaste and applications directly to the teeth.
Salt has been shown to effectively reduce dental decay, Pollick says, though it has some disadvantages. “For very young children, they don’t have much salt in their diet, so they’re not going to get the early effects of fluoride in their baby teeth,” he says.
There also are concerns that people can get too much fluoride, he says, when people live in a community with both fluoridated water and fluoridated salt.
Some nations put fluoride in the milk supply, much like Americans add Vitamin D to milk. That’s being used in parts of Bulgaria, Chile, Peru, Russia, Thailand and the United Kingdom.
A variety of studies have shown that many nations have reduced dental decay, as has the U.S., but without fluoridating their water.
The United States, including local public schools, also has tried giving children fluoride tablets to chew in class. One problem with that is that compliance is uneven, especially among low-income children, Pollick says, and it’s very expensive.
He says fluoridated water remains the most reliable and cost-effective system.
Fluoride’s history began with a brown stain
Back in 1901, East Coast dental school graduate Frederick McKay moved to Colorado Springs, and began noticing grotesque brown stains on his patients’ teeth.
They called it Colorado Brown Stain.
In the ensuing years, Dr. McKay and dental researcher Dr. G.V. Black realized that local folks’ teeth may be discolored, but they also were surprisingly resistant to cavities.
McKay wondered if it was something in the water.
He was summoned to Oakley, Idaho, in 1923 to meet with parents there about brown stains on their children’s teeth. McKay advised town leaders to find a new source of drinking water. That did the trick, though he didn’t know why.
Later, McKay and Dr. Grover Kempf of the United States Public Health Service went to another place where people were suffering from brown teeth: Bauxite, Ark., an Alcoa company town.
Alcoa chemist H.V. Churchill, who had spent years fending off claims that aluminum cookware was poisonous, wanted to protect his company’s reputation. His assistant, using a more sophisticated technology than McKay possessed, found that the Bauxite water supply had high levels of fluoride.
In 1931, Churchill advised McKay to test the water in other towns, using the same test. Within months, his 30-year quest to discover the cause of the brown stains was over.
By the late 1930s, federal researchers developed a way to measure fluoride down to 0.1 parts per million. National Institute of Health researcher Dr. H. Trendley Dean and his assistants discovered the brown stains wouldn’t occur with fluoride levels of less than 1 part per million.
In 1944, Dean wanted to test whether adding that amount of fluoride to the water would prevent teeth decay without causing brown stains.
In 1945, Grand Rapids, Mich., agreed to become the first city in the world to add fluoride to its water system. Eleven years into a 15-year study, Dean announced there was a 60 percent drop in cavities among Grand Rapids children.
(This account is based on material from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.)
FLUORIDATION IS ILLEGAL
1) The fluorosilicic acid used contains lead and leaches a lot of lead from pipes. Federal law requires every water district to give lead notice when lead “contamination results from … corrosivity of the water supply sufficient to cause leaching of lead”. Everett admits leaching of lead producing water at taps of up to 63 ppb, an extremely high level. Lead levels drop when fluoridation stops, as happened in Tacoma. There is clear evidence that fluoridation leaches lead from pipes. Water districts are ignoring this law, and our childrens’ IQ is being lowered.
2) Fluoridation is a common law battery. People really are being harmed in the short term, especially those who are chemically sensitive, those with diabetes and arthritis and thyroid and kidney disease. Some hypersensitives have to leave town. When a government commits a felony, and battery is a felony, this is a violation of US Constitutional rights and therefore a violation of the RICO Act when done across state lines. The rest of us are being harmed in the long term.
3) FDA regulations prohibit the use of hydrogen fluoride without prior FDA approval. The fluorosilicic acid used by Everett contains a lot of hydrogen fluoride.
4) Washington law allows fluoridation only with materials which “comply” with NSF Rule 60. That rule requires that twenty different toxicological studies be done on fluoridation materials. Water districts rely on this assurance. However, NSF officials have admitted under oath that no studies are being done. Therefore, the fluoridation materials do not “comply” with NSF and therefore are not legal for use in Washington. The same is true of Oregon, and 47 states altogether.
5) The supplier applies for and displays the NSF Rule 60 mark and so makes the same representations – that the toxicological studies are being done. At the same time the supplier attempts to waive all liability. Everett and the Health District are duped into participating in this RICO Act criminal fraud.
These five points are detailed below. For an overview of fluoridation see www.fluoride-class-action.com/inauguration.
Around 200 million Americans receive fluoridated tap water. Around 92% of those receive industrial grade silicofluoride. Silicofluoride contains or breaks down into fluoride ion, hydrogen-fluoride, silicic acid, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, barium, thallium, and other heavy metals and toxins known to be harmful to health. Around 8% are fluoridated using industrial grade sodium fluoride, which is only slightly less contaminated than silicofluoride.
Fluoridationists refer to “fluoride” and “fluoridation” without clarifying the different types of fluoride when it is relevant to do so. WAC 246-290-460 authorizes “fluoridation” with “fluoride”. It is incorrect in most cases to talk generally about “fluoride” because they behave differently and we react differently to them. For example, naturally fluoridated water (e.g., the well in Lynnwood) contains calcium fluoride at .13 ppm. Fluoridationists say they are merely “adjusting” the level of naturally occurring fluoride, but they are instead adding an artifical fluoride which acts very unnaturally on our bodies. This is scientific sloppiness.
Since the end of the last Ice Age, farmers had been growing crops organically. However, in the 20th Century chemists developed super-phosphate fertilizer. They sold it as convenient and quick acting. Faster was better. Previous farmers had done nicely without it. Organic farmers today do nicely without it. Chemists created a market for an unnecessary product that gradually kills off microbial life in soils.
Fertilizer plants in Florida and Louisiana cooked rock phosphate in sulfuric acid, and the emissions of fluoride and other toxins polluted the air for miles around. In the 1970s and 1980s the EPA required the plants to capture the emissions with wet scrubbers installed in their smokestacks. The emissions contain silicofluoride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, other heavy metals, and other toxins. Instead of the toxins going into the air, they were diverted into the scrubber liquor.
But what was to be done with the scrubber liquor? It was illegal to dump it into rivers, lakes, or seas. Fertilizer companies, without approval from any federal or state agency, beginning around 1950, began selling the raw scrubber liquor to water districts, which then piped it into our drinking water at 1.0 ppm, with the level recently reduced to .7 ppm. Once this vice was in place, economic and political forces made it exceedingly difficult to dislodge. Some 200 million Americans drink such slightly polluted water.
Before silicofluoride was used to fluoridate, sodium fluoride was used, another industrial grade waste product – from aluminum plants instead of fertilizer plants. Silicofluoride was less expensive and more abundant than sodium fluoride.
All 49 producers or resellers of fluoridation materials in the United States issue Material Safety Document Sheets (MSDS) in which they disclaim all liability for any harm whatsoever which fluoridation materials might cause. However, before offering said fluoridation materials for sale, they apply for and obtain certification of their product.
The certifying “agency” is the National Sanitation Foundation, known as NSF or NSF International. NSF proudly refers to its NSF 60 certification as “the mark”. It is displayed on certificates of analysis. It is recognized as authoritative by EPA administrators, CDC administrators, states, state agencies, cities, and water districts. The EPA itself finances and approves the NSF 60 standard. It is recognized as authoritative in Canada and other countries the world over. Silicofluoride and sodium fluoride would not be saleable for drinking water fluoridation purposes without such certification.
The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.
NSF officials, including one speaking under oath in deposition, have admitted that NSF has has no toxicological studies (see pages 27 and 67) regarding the fluoridation materials which NSF certifies as “safe”, as I document in “Who or What is the NSF?” Again, please see www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.
Note that the fertilizer companies which produce the scrubber liquor are on the NSF boards which establish the scrubber liquor standards. This is a clear conflict of interest. Such conflicts are detrimental to scientific objectivity and make it likely for profits to trump health and safety.
Defenders of fluoridation minimize the effect of the lead-arsenic-silicofluoride scrubber liquor cocktail, saying that the amounts of heavy metals and other toxins are small. However, one should not flippantly dismiss even small amounts of such highly toxic substances without thoroughly studying them, including a study of how they can interact each other and their toxicity can be compounded.
Silicofluoride contains arsenic, a confirmed Type 1, Class A human carcinogen. It is impossible to identify any level of a carcinogen which can safely be consumed, including arsenic. California proposed public health goal for arsenic in 2003 was 4 ppt. That is parts per trillion or .004 ppb or .000004 ppm. California says:
… there is no evidence from methylation patterns [elemental arsenic converting into organic arsenic] that would support a threshold below which there would be no cancer risks. p. 128.
NSF admits that tap water fluoridated at 1 ppm fluoride may contain up to 1.66 ppb arsenic, that is 1,600 ppt, which is 377 times the 4 ppt California public health goal. It is irresponsible knowingly to add any arsenic whatsoever to drinking water, although the California goal would imply it is acceptable to add up to 4 ppt.
Some 47 states allow fluoridation to take place only if it is done using NSF 60 certified fluoridation materials. Washington is one of the 47 states. See WAC 246-290-220(3). The same is true of Oregon. See OAR 33-061-0087(06), http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_333/333_061.html.
The Washington Board of Health relies on the loud assurances of the NSF in making its decision to allow local-option fluoridation, to specify the fluoridation materials which may be used, and to set the allowable range of concentrations.
Likewise, local water districts rely on NSF certification to make their final decisions to fluoridate. Board and water districts believe in the truthfulness of the NSF 60 certification mark.
If silicofluoride and sodium fluoride did prevent tooth decay and did not cause any collateral harm to anyone, then maybe this deception could be excused. Unfortunately, the industrial silicofluoride used by Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma and the sodium fluoride used elsewhere is harmful to fetuses and infants in the short term, and it is harmful to all of us in the long term. Public utility standards should be calibrated to be protective of all, but especially of the most vulnerable.
There is no debate over the harmful nature of silicofluoride and sodium fluoride. In fact, the supporters of fluoridation, including the CDC, admit that 41% of children age 12-15 suffer from dental fluorosis, that 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and that 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and up to 100% of enamel impacted). 8.6% + 3.6% = 12.2%.
It is a civil battery and a criminal assault to give 12.2% or more of our children noticeably disfigured teeth. The NRC says that most fluoride gets to children through drinking water and food made with drinking water. The other major source is toothpaste, packing a wallop of fluoride at around 1,500 ppm to 2,400 ppm. Some fluoride gets absorbed through tissues and some is swallowed.
The difference between fluoridated tap water and fluoridated toothpaste is that it is easy to avoid the fluoride in toothpaste simply by not brushing with it, while it is difficult and expensive to avoid the fluoride in tap water and food made with tap water.
Expert witnesses on all sides of this issue will admit if called to testify that fluoridation is causing hundreds of thousands of kids to have “funky teeth”. The causal connection is admitted and proven. When you add to that the known harm coming from lead and arsenic, the case becomes even stronger.
The CDC minimizes the harm by saying it is “cosmetic only”. However, fluorosis is definitely not “cosmetic only” for the 8.6% and the 3.6% who have mild, moderate, and severe fluorosis. Their teeth are ugly, and children are ashamed of them. The emotional impact on adolescents is like that of severe acne. Children with fluorosis tend to smile with their lips closed to hide their teeth. And CDC passes over the lead and arsenic problem.
The tradeoff is an alleged slight reduction in tooth decay in return for fluorosis of an entire mouthful of teeth plus other harms. Caries a can be x-rayed, “drilled, filled and billed” for under $100 each. Dr. Bill Osmunson, cosmetic dentist and public health graduate explains that fluorotic teeth, on the other hand, are difficult and expensive to fix, and that the cost of dental veneers and replacements over a lifetime can exceed $100,000. He notes that drinking water fluoridation is good for the cosmic dentistry business. If teeth are fluorotic, then all bones and other calcium rich areas are fluorotic too, because fluoride aggressively seeks out and binds with calcium throughout the body.
To the CDC, the EPA, and other pro-fluoridation groups, the disfigurement of 41%, 8.6%, or 3.6% of our children to different degrees is an acceptable casualty rate, a reasonable price to be paid to achieve a dubious reduction in caries, which they admit to be at best only a 17% to 25% reduction. Other studies show no reduction at all or worsening.
In addition to fetuses and infants, other groups are especially sensitive, including hard laborers and those with diabetes (because they drink so much water), those with kidney disease, arthritics and the aged, and those with thyroid disease. Further, around one percent of the population is “allergic” or hypersensitive to fluoride and must leave town or take extreme precautions to avoid it. The autistic are especially sensitive to fluoride.
In its own publication on its own website the CDC admits that any positive effect of fluoride is topical and not systemic, yet the CDC and other pro-fluoridation groups persist in advising us that we should drink and eat fluoride. For those who insist on consuming fluoride, eating a little toothpaste would be far more economical.
Neither the EPA nor the CDC has any jurisdiction to encourage, finance, or require adding fluoride to water. The Safe Drinking Water forbids them from requiring fluoridation: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”.
Neither EPA nor CDC may require fluoridation, so they only encourage it and work to convince states, cities, and water districts to require it, passing the buck down the line to local governing bodies such as the Everett City Council, in an effort to avoid violating the Safe Drinking Water Act.
There is another clear violation of federal law. An FDA regulation at 21 CFR 310.545 prohibits the marketing and sale of any anti-caries drug which contains hydrogen fluoride unless the the seller has first filed an FDA new drug application (NDA) and received FDA approval.
Silicofluoride is composed of and breaks down predominantly into fluoride ion, silicic acid, and hydrogen fluoride, plus small amounts of many other toxins. Hydrogen fluoride is the most immediately toxic component in silicofluoride. Because its charge is neutral (F–H+), it can slip easily through the neutral, non-polar, fatty lipid layer of the stomach lining, and then into the blood stream and the brain. Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma all use silicofluoride which is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride is also referred to as “free acid”. See the Simplot Certificate of Analysis for Everett and the Mosaic Certificate of Analysis for Seattle on the http://fluoride-class-action.com/foia page.
Said federal regulation includes a list of elements and compounds, including hydrogen fluoride. The regulation says of the chemicals on the list:
…based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses.
Then the regulation states:
Any OTC [over the counter] drug product … containing any active ingredient(s) as specified in … this section is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of … the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), for which an approved new drug application … is required for marketing.
The above hydrogen fluoride regulation is unenforced. Is it overlooked or just plain ignored? In the fluoridation arena you will find many uninforced, overlooked, and ignored laws. Fluoridation – initially with sodium fluoride – got started during World War II and the Cold War. The military, ALCOA, and other industries backed it. They latched onto a legend that natural fluoride in Texas and Colorado reduced decay, although the basis for the reduction was the high calcium levels, not the fluoride. These powerful groups generally got their way during that era. They rewarded universities for supporting fluoridation. The universities graduated physicians and dentists who became featured speaker “trusted professionals”, endorsers and defenders of fluoridation. Most of the “trusted professionals” we rely on are themselves deceived. Fluoridation began without prior approval by any federal or state agency. Since 1945 no agency has had the courage to stop it.
I would identify the following as possible violations of civil law:
First, water districts are being swindled. They are being manipulated into spending scarce dollars on a product which is both ineffective for its stated purpose and harmful to users. NSF is not enforcing its own NSF 60 standards, as explained above. Water districts are fluoridating using materials which do not meet standards set by state law – because NSF is not obtaining the safety studies which it says it is obtaining and which water districts believe are being obtained. This constitutes common law misrepresentation and fraud and thus is a consumer protection violation under 15 USC 45 and under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.
Second, silicofluoride and sodium fluoride both contain and/or break down into hydrogen fluoride, and thus cannot be sold for anti-caries treatment without prior FDA approval. This is a violation of 21 CFR 310.545. This could be the basis for a civil action for a restraining order – unless the FDA is the only entity which may enforce its regulations.
Third, Washington law allows fluoridation to take place only with NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials according to WAC 246-290-220(3). However NSF is not enforcing its own standards. Therefore there are no NSF 60 approved fluoridation materials. Fluoridation therefore should not proceed and could be enjoined in a civil action for a restraining order.
I would identify the following as possible violations of criminal law:
Second, because consumers of fluoridated water are suffering common law battery and criminal assault, and because profiteers are manipulating and working with others to implement and continue the assault and battery, the law against solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 USC 373 is being violated, especially with respect to fetuses and infants.
JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
February 20, 2013
LEAD GASOLINE, LEAD BULLETS, LEAD PIPES, LEAD WATER
Lead is very useful in industry, but it is very harmful to living things.
From the 1920s into the 1970s our air was poisoned by tetraethyl added to gasoline. Soils everywhere were contaminated, and when soil dries out, the lead is still in the dust.
Tetraethyl lead was promoted as the only solution for knocking, “but that was just a lie”. Ethanol at 15% in gasoline was just as good. After a half century of this scam, tetraethyl lead was outlawed for use in cars and trucks. But a loophole was carved out for aviation gas, commonly known as avgas. Many propeller driven planes still burn avgas, and they spew lead down on us as they fly overhead. Most piston driven planes can be made to run just as well on other gasoline mixtures, and those which cannot should get new engines.
Bullets are usually made of lead. We shoot animals with lead bullets and shot and then eat them! See Oregonian article on Condors, 5-2-11, and Seattle Times article on shooting ranges, 2-14-13.) There are alternatives that are priced right and shoot right. Shooters should follow the Army’s lead and switch to lead-free “green bullets”.
The most ignored source of lead is tap water. Companies which supply the particular type of dental additives which Portland plans to inject into its water, admits that it contains lead, and so too does NSF, the quasi-agency which regulates water additives. Even worse, the dental additives are excellent at dissolving lead, and there is a lot of lead in Portland plumbing.
There is lead in old service lines (street to house), in brass-lead pipes, in galvanized pipe (which absorbs lead from lead service lines), in the solder used on copper pipe, and in virtually all water faucets. Brass which is 8% lead is considered “lead free” under US and Oregon law.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported in 2004 that lead had been found in Seattle schools at up to 1,600 ppb, an astonishing level. The EPA action level is 15 ppb, and the EPA goal is zero. 1,600 ppb equals 1.6 ppm, which is twice the proposed .8 ppm level of the dental additives themselves.
Seattle injects dental additives into its water, and dental additives leach lead. Once in the body, lead is hard to excrete. “Lead as metal ion irreversibly binds sulfhydryl groups on proteins, including both structural and enzymatic proteins”. When Tacoma turned off the dental additives in 1992, lead levels dropped dramatically. Lead damages the brains of fetuses and babies most of all because their cells are still dividing.
Nevertheless, it is an indisputable fact that the dental additives to be added to Portland water contain not only lead but also significant amounts of arsenic, and lesser amounts of mercury, cadmium, barium, and thallium (which is slightly radioactive).
If we are really serious about lowering blood lead levels, we need to stop the use of avgas, quit shooting with lead bullets, and not inject dental additives into our drinking water. There are better ways to fly airplanes, better ways to shoot bullets, and better ways to protect teeth – such as basic dental services, education about proper cleaning, supplementation with vitamin D, topical antibiotics which kill decay causing bacteria, and not eating sugar and sweetening with xylitol instead.
See documentation for all assertions made at www.leadoutofourwater.wordpress.com.
Sincerely,James Robert Deal, Attorney WSBA Number 8103
How Does Fluorosilicic Acid Leach Lead?
And Why Does Fluorosilicic Acid Leach Lead So Much More Than Sodium Fluoride Does?
By Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Working with James Robert Deal J.D.
December 31, 2012
Acknowledgments. Thanks to James Robert Deal for asking the questions which prodded me to write this article and for translating my article, as James says, from Scientific American terminology to Popular Science terminology.
Background: There is virtually no lead in Everett’s pristine water source, Spada Lake, just north of Sultan, in the heart of the “convergence zone”, where the winds which went north to get around Mount Olympus converge with the winds which went south to get around Mount Olympus, and which gets 140 inches of rainfall each year. In 1991 Everett’s city fathers were scammed into “fluoridating” Everett’s water, not knowing at the time that the so-called fluoride, commonly known as fluorosilicic acid, H2SiF6, contained small amounts of a score of poisonous elements and compounds, including lead. The fluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate can bring with it and add up to 1.1 ppb lead to drinking water, according to the National Sanitation Foundation.
As bad as 1.1 ppb lead is, there is enormously more lead at the tap. How can this be? This is so because there is lead in old service lines, old galvanized pipe, copper solder, and water taps, and fluorosilicic acid – and its break down compound orthosilicic acid – leach lead very well.
We hear a lot about paint as a source of lead poisoning, but almost nothing about lead in drinking water. It is a health district bind spot. This is not a trifling matter. Lead has been measured at up to 63 ppb at random taps in Everett and up to 1,600 ppb in Seattle school drinking fountains.
Coplan, Masters, Maas, and Sawan showed that that there is much more lead in tap water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid than with sodium fluoride. However, they did not explain the mechanism by which fluorosilicic acid dissolves lead.
Industrial grade fluorosilicic acidcomponents are the most widely consumed non-nutritive chemical substance in the world. Because fluorosilicic acid is much cheaper than sodium fluoride, it is used in around 90% of water districts which fluoridate.
When diluted in water, fluorosilicic acid breaks down in drinking water into fluoride ion, hydrogen fluoride, and orthosilicic acid, H4SiO4, as the 2006 NRC study on fluoride stated. Little has been written in the fluoridation debate about orthosilicic acid, and that has been a mistake. Orthosilicic acid is classed as a weak acid and is often dismissed as relatively harmless. Unfortunately for our health, it is able to dissolve – slowly but surely – lead salts out of lead based pipes and fittings, especially brass.
In this article the author explores why orthosilicic acid dissolves lead and also proposes that orthosilicic acid passing over the teeth can directly slowly degrade calcium phosphate in teeth enamel.
The author challenges those who disagree to explain why and challenges biologists and chemists to run studies and experiments to confirm or refute these hypotheses.
Many countries followed the lead of the U.S. and initiated fluoridation. The following countries provide fluoridated water to the listed percentage of their respective populations: Singapore (100%), Hong Kong (100%), the Republic of Ireland (71%), United States (70%), Chile (70%), Australia (70%), Malaysia (66%), Israel (65%), Brazil (60%), New Zealand (50%), Canada (40%), South Korea (12%), Spain (10%), Great Britain (10%), Vietnam (4%), and Japan (1%). There is mandatory salt fluoridation in many other countries.
Many countries experimented with fluoridation but terminated it, usually on the grounds that it was the uncontrolled administration of a drug without informed consent.
The mass treatment of public fresh drinking water with industrial fluorosilicic acid to produce fluoride ion at 1.0 ppm also produces approximately 6 ppm sodium ion and .7 ppm orthosilicic acid. None of these is found in or belongs in fresh drinking water.
Fluoridation began with sodium fluoride in 1945, a granular solid produced by the aluminum and uranium industries. However, when fluoridation became a runaway presumed best seller in the 1950s, there was not enough sodium fluoride to go around. So industrial fluorosilicic acid, which comes in liquid form, and sodium silicofluoride, which comes as a granular solid, together referred to as silicofluorides, have largely supplanted sodium fluoride as the fluoridation material of choice.
Fluoridationists continue to convince water districts to begin fluoridating or not to stop fluoridating, however some 250 cities have halted the practice since 1990. They did so for a variety of reasons, including its expense, the irrefutable evidence that ingested fluoride does not decrease dental caries, and the fact that fluoridation is the imposition of a drug upon those who have not given their informed consent to be so treated.
Neither fluoride nor silicic acid are constituents of normal pristine human or mammalian blood, but rather are contaminant materials, so the decision to alter normal fresh drinking water into an industrial liquid, argued to be improved over normal water for human health, is a modern conception that has also significantly altered the composition of the bloodstream of entire populations. The present article addresses the ingestion of the orthosilicic acid component, the second most widely consumed industrial chemical after fluoride. Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient or a normal constituent of the bloodstream and thus of course is not listed in tables of ranges for blood constituents in any Clinical Chemistry, Nursing, or Veterinary text .
Unique Chemical Properties of Orthosilicic Acid.
It is essential to understand selected unusual chemical properties of orthosilicic acid. The first dissociation constant of this acid in water is very low, 2 x10-10, and it is therefore classified as a ‘very weak’ acid.
Aside: The dissociation constant is the ratio of the concentration of hydrogen ion protons times the silicate anion concentration divided by the concentration of the intact acid at a given temperature. Strong acids dissociate completely in water, and their dissociation constants are high as not to be accurately measurable. Strong acids with pH less than zero may be used for destructive purposes such as rapid oxidation and dissolution of metals that weak acids do much less readily or cannot do at all.
However, the terms strong and weak applied to acids are relative. In the stomach hydrochloric acid is a strong acid, which at dilute concentrations and a pH of 3, assists with digestion of food. The gastric mucosa lining of the stomach protects the rest of the body from this acidic environment. The intestines then neutralize HCL with weak base bicarbonate and a wide variety of ‘weak’ acid/base conjugate pairs in sufficient amounts so that body extracellular fluids are maintained at a pH of 7.4. The pH of the bloodstream is the most tightly regulated parameter in all physiology, and deviations of only ± 0.2 pH units causes unconsciousness. Through autonomic neural brain pathways, breathing rates are automatically adjusted to retain proper pH by adjustment of carbon dioxide through exhalation and carbonic acid/bicarbonate ratios in the blood.
Note that strong acids are rendered neutral by the addition of either equal amounts of strong bases or the addition of larger amounts of weak conjugate bases such as bicarbonate or biphosphate, turning the acid into a harmless conjugate base. Most important for this discussion, note that “weak” acids are nevertheless capable of important physiologic effects, that is by acting as acid catalysts or as reactants. Strong acids cause skin burns, but the weak acid hydrofluoric acid HF, one which does not dissociate well, causes even more serious burns and does deeper tissue damage. Because the HF molecule is neutral and very small, it can slip easily through the neutral fatty lipid layer and slowly penetrate deeply into the body. The point is that some weak acids can be extremely harmful.
Orthosilicic ‘weak’ acid has been long used in agriculture to break down solid calcium phosphate Ca3(PO4)2, thereby releasing soluble phosphate ion in soils even at neutral pH, for uptake by plant life. The reaction of silicic acid with calcium phosphate under neutral pH conditions is: H4SiO4 + Ca3(PO4)2 → HPO4-2 + 3Ca2+ + PO4-3+ H3SiO4–. This reaction occurs at a pH where any strong acid would have been neutralized. Orthosilicic acid is reluctant to dissociate and can break down calcium phosphate. This reaction is relevant not only to calcium phosphate in soil but also to calcium phosphate in teeth enamel. By means of orthosilicic acid, enamel is subject to slow and progressive degradation. This is so because the dissociation constant for biphosphate, HPO4-2, is only approximately 1 x 10-12, which is much lower than that for silicic acid, which again is 2 x10-10.
The pH of drinking waters in the U.S. typically range from 7 to 8.4 and remains so after treatment with fluorosilicic acid because the industrial acid is neutralized by the injection into water of alkalizing agents, usually caustic soda, NaOH, also known as Drano which is a strong base, or in the case of Everett and Seattle by sodium carbonate, Na2CO3, a weak base, also known as soda ash. While this neutralization works on fluorosilicic acid, it does not work on orthosilicic acid, and this is because of orthosilicic acid’s low dissociation constant. The pH would have to be raised to roughly 10 before the alkalinizing agent would neutralize the orthosilicic acid, but it would be impractical or impossible to raise the pH to 10, because doing this would create a new set of problems. Thus, the intact orthosilicic acid is fully retained in all treated drinking water, ready to dissolve lead in service lines, copper pipe solder, and plumbing faucets when the water gets to the home.
After assimilation, orthosilicic acid remains intact throughout the body except that silicate is known to incorporate into bone calcium phosphate and into collagen. Orthosilicic acid is eliminated by healthy kidneys, but a substantial amount is retained in kidney and other tissues.
As with any acid, orthosilicic is also capable of reacting with any metal having a reduction potential greater than hydrogen. Lead and aluminum are such metals, having reduction potentials greater than that for hydrogen, -0.13 and -1.66 volts, respectively.
Moreover, orthosilicic acid will leach aluminum from cookware and can contribute to significant uptake of aluminum ion in fluoride treated water. Although the Alzheimer’s Association no longer recognizes officially that aluminum may cause this disease, nevertheless silicate bound with aluminum is often found complexed to abnormal proteins in the brains of those afflicted with this disease, and even if orthosilicic acid binding of aluminum is not a primary cause in some cases of Alzheimer’s, it could certainly aggravate the condition and at minimum most certainly does not belong in brain tissue. For this reason alone, given the fact that Alzheimer’s incidence is rising precipitously in the U.S., the infusion of industrially produced orthosilicic acid intentionally into public water supplies should be considered a contraindication.
Silicic Acid Entry into Public Water Supplies.
Thus it happens that silicic acid, a primary breakdown chemical of fluorosilicic acid, makes its way into most fluoridated water. During neutralization of the acid with caustic soda, every 30 tons of fluoridation materials added produce about 10 tons of fluoride ion, 10 tons of sodium ion, and 10 tons of intact orthosilicic acid. When diluted the reaction is:
H2SiF6 + 4NaOH → 4F– + H4SiO4 + 4 Na+ + 2HF,
When fluoride ion is present at 0.8 ppm and water pH is 7.4, currently the situation in Everett and Seattle, there will be approximately 0.7 ppm free fluoride ion, around 0.6 ppm orthosilicic acid, and around 0.6 ppm sodium ion products. There will be trace amounts of hydrofluoric acid HF (and much more at stomach pH). Note that the principle of conservation of mass of course applies, where 1.9 mg of starting materials (the total mass of fluorosilicic and soda added) yield 1.8 mg of product materials per liter of water treated.
Turning to hydrofluoric acid, again at a water pH of 7.4, the HF level is only around 0.05 ppb (2 x 10-9 M); however, the intact orthosilicic acid concentration at 0.6 ppm (6 x 10-6 M) is over 3,000 times greater. Thus, orthosilicic acid is the chief weak acid generated in the process, rather than hydrofluoric acid. (The 0.05 ppb level of HF at pH 7.4 is calculated from the Henderson-Hasselbach equation, pH = pKa + log [F-]/[HF] where the pKa for HF dissociation is approximately 3.2. See Lide, editor, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Chemical Rubber Company).
Further, water supplies frequently use aluminum sulfate as a flocculent to neutralize the negative charges on small dirt particles so they will clump together and can be filtered out. Aluminum forms complexes with fluoride in the acidic stomach. Likewise, silicofluoride complexes also form in the acidic stomach. A recent NMR study confirmed that such a complex which it suggested was SiF5–, forms at a pH around 3.
Lead ion in Drinking Water and Fluorosilicic Acid.
NSF admits that some lots of fluorosilicic acid produce after dilution up to 1.1 ppb lead in the product water. This level is after dilution 230,000 times to get the fluoride ion down to 1.0 ppm, and so this is the maximum part of total lead which comes from the fluoridation materials. Although below the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level of 10 ppb, 1.1 ppb lead is a significant amount of lead, but much more significant is the amount of lead leached by orthosilicic acid. Random taps in Everett have shown lead present at up to 63 ppb. Lead levels were measured at up to 1,600 ppb in Seattle school drinking fountains.
Coplan, Masters, Maas, and Sawan published that that there is much more lead in tap water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid than with sodium fluoride, and that blood lead levels were higher. However, as stated previously, they did not explain the mechanism by which fluorosilicic acid dissolves lead and increases blood lead levels. Many ask how is it possible that fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluoride both yield the same amount of fluoride ion when dissolved in our drinking water, but fluorosilicic acid leaches so much more lead than does sodium fluoride.
The answer to this question is that it is not the fluoride which dissolves the lead well, but the orthosilicic acid (H4SiO4), the primary breakdown product left when fluorosilicic acid is diluted to the point where fluoride ion is at 1.0 ppm at neutral pH (see National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006 p. 53). This is the orthosilicic acid form that remains the intact acid even at a very alkaline pH of 10 because its dissociation constant Ka is only 2 x 10-10. Thus it is the intact orthosilicic acid, the predominant acid form present over the pH range 7 to 10 that is leaching lead or lead salts from pipes and plumbing fixtures where the following reactions can occur:
2H4SiO4 + Pb(s) → Pb2+ + H2 + 2H3SiO4–.
Indeed, it is well known that even the weak organic acids including intact acetic acid (CH3COOH) dissolve lead, despite the fact that the potent hydrofluoric acid, HF, is unable to dissolve lead well (see Merck Index, 9th edition, 1976, entry 5242, p. 5235). Orthosilicic acid is a ‘weak’ acid, remaining un-ionized at high pH, but this makes the acid able to react at alkaline pH with lead, or especially lead salts known to typically line old pipe surfaces such as lead hydroxide, lead phosphate or lead carbonate where, since the Ka2 for bicarbonate is 2 x 10-11 the following reaction occurs:
2H4SiO4 + PbCO3 → 2HCO3– + Pb2+ + 2H3SiO4–.
And the Ka for HOH is 10-14 where the following reaction occurs:
2H4SiO4 + Pb(OH)2 → Pb2+ + 2H3SiO4– + 2OH–.
Coplan and Masters found that brass fixtures containing lead are most susceptible to fluorosilicic acid treated water. They demonstrated that higher blood lead levels occur in children ingesting this treated water compared to water treated with either sodium fluoride or left untreated. It is not surprising that fluorosilicic acid treatment of water might cause increased lead levels in blood, while sodium fluoride treatment does not. Infusions of industrial fluorosilicic acid typically produce after dilution into municipal water supplies roughly equal amounts of fluoride ion, sodium ion and intact orthosilicic acid (NRC, 2006, p. 56). It is orthosilicic acid which is responsible for the increased lead leeching from plumbing.
The pH at which orthosilicic acid is neutralized (i.e. ionized) by caustic soda, so it would be unable to react with lead or its salts, is very high, above pH 10. Its pKa of 9.7 is the pH at which the acid would only be half-dissociated. The higher the acid content, the more corrosive the orthosilicic acid can be.
Fluorosilicic acid treated water dissolves lead from pipes more readily than does sodium fluoride treated water, even though the HF trace concentration is the same at a given fluoride level from either source. Therefore, as expected, it may be the un-ionized orthosilicic acid that is responsible for the dissolved lead from pipes exposed to this acid in waters treated with fluorosilicic acid, but which is not present in water treated with sodium fluoride.
Silicic Acid May React with Calcium Phosphate in Enamel.
Intact acids readily dissolve weak acid salts, including enamel calcium phosphate, the extent determined by concentration and exposure time. The “weak” organic carbonic acid H2CO3 (Ka = 4.5 x 10-7) in soda pop eventually dissolves teeth enamel soaked in vitro in large volumes of carbonated beverages. The intact acid concentration of 0.8 ppm at pH 5.6, compared to the intact orthosilicic acid concentration of 0.6 ppm in drinking water at pH 7-8. The slow reaction with calcium phosphate is:
2H4SiO4 + Ca3(PO4)2 → 2HPO4-2 + 2H3SiO4– + 3Ca2+..
Although material safety data sheets on orthosilicic acid indicate it is fully assimilated and well-excreted by normal kidneys, lifelong orthosilicic acid from treated drinking water has not been evaluated, and dental effects have not been examined in controlled studies.
Orthosilicic acid was reported to be found in dental calculus by virtue of preventing calcium phosphate precipitation on gingival surfaces of teeth (S. Hidak, Archives of Oral Biology Volume 38, Issue 5, May 1993, Pages 405–413, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003996993902125).
Because of claims of benefit without adequate clinical trials testing for longer term side effects, orthosilicic acid tablets are sold for optional use in solid form for swallowing, under the assumption of absence of peripheral harm. These tablets would not affect teeth topically, but lifelong orthosilicic acid from industrial sources in drinking water however is completely contraindicated in any topical caries preventive or as an ingestible.
Silicic Acid/Fluoride are Non-Nutritive, Abnormal Materials in Blood.
It is proper to state that neither silicic acid nor fluoride ion are listed as constituents of normal human blood (Teitz, Clinical Chemistry, W.B. Saunders, 1976; the Merck Manual, any edition; Leahy, Foundations of Nursing Practice, W.B. Saunders, 1998; or equivalent Nursing or Clinical Chemistry text with tabulated listings for normal blood constituents). These substances at any concentration are contaminants in blood.
Silicic acid is widely argued in the dental industry to be “innocuous” and argued to be “metabolized away” after ingestion. This of course has not been established for lifelong consumption nor have controlled human clinical trials been conducted for effects on either brain function or teeth health.
The effects caused by the continuous lifelong consumption of orthosilicic acid in the human are not well understood. Silicon is found cross-linking collagen fibers and stimulates collagen synthesis in vitro, but this effect is not known with certainty to be either physiologic or pathologic. In chicks, evidence of bone damage was presented in one study presumed to be due to silicon lack, but no evidence of disease is known in humans due to a deficiency of silicon. There is no official minimum dietary requirement for silicon and no designation that it is a mineral nutrient, although the agent is marketed without FDA clinical trials and approval as an oral ingestible for the purpose of strengthening nails and as an anti-wrinkling agent. The anhydrous form of silicon, silica found in quartz and granite, is not assimilated by ingestion but when inhaled or injected causes the well-known condition silicosis of the lung and liver with associated fibrosis and hepatic carcinoma.
Neither the EPA, FDA, nor WHO have assigned either a minimum or maximum level for silicic acid in drinking water, and no agency has recognized a dietary need for it. As such, there is little likelihood that Federal regulations for silicic acid infusions into public water supplies will be developed anytime soon.Health Impacts of Silicic Acid.
Although a positive view has been presented for possible benefits of silicic acid consumption in man, nevertheless silicic acid at levels discussed here from water silicofluoridation leads to softer fingernails and changes in skin structure (see: Barel A, Calomme M, Timchenko A, De Paepe K, Demeester N, Rogiers V, Clarys P, Vanden Berghe D., Archives of Dermatolical Research 2005 Oct;297(4):147-53. Epub 2005 Oct 26) associated with artificial stimulation of collagen formation by fibroblasts that could be non-physiologic.Orthosilicic acid is sold as an anti-wrinkling oral agent and possible “vitamin” or “dietary supplement”, marketed as such under the name Biosil: http://www.amazon.com/Biosil-Orthosilicic-Acid-Veg-Caps/dp/B003WGCK70 even though this agent has no known purpose in human blood. So, treatment of water with fluorosilicic acid provides two substances, both argued by different promoters as being mineral “nutrients” or “supplements”, orthosilicic acid and fluoride, despite the fact that neither has been shown to serve any purposes in the human body.
That silicic acid can be a nutrient is not well-founded. It has long been known that lung silicosis is eventually a lethal condition in silica and granite workers and that hepatic and lung fibrosis and hepatic carcinomas are easily induced in mammals with silica at known high single doses, where 100% of rodents directly injected with this material, without inhalation, after one year develop these conditions, associated with acute fibrosis that the silica causes. The interpretation that “silicic acid improves skin by increasing collagen synthesis” fails to consider that the opposite interpretation may be more scientific, which is that collagen synthesized by silicon stimulation could be abnormal, and is formed as a defense mechanism in response to physical insult from silica. The excess collagen in silicosis of course is an abnormality (see: Williams AO, Knapton AD, Hepatic silicosis, cirrhosis, and liver tumors in mice and hamsters: studies of transforming growth factor beta expression, Hepatology, 1996 May;23(5):1268-75) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.510230548/pdf).
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that crystalline silica in the form of quartz from occupational inhaled sources should be classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), upgraded from its previous classification as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). This conclusion was drawn on the basis of a relatively large number of human population studies that together provide sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of inhaled crystalline silica (Archives of Oral Biology, Volume 38, Issue 5, May 1993, Pages 405–413). Silicates under acidic conditions such as in the stomach are converted to the fully soluble form silicic acid which is fully assimilated. Oral ingestion of this acid is well tolerated in the human, but no acute toxicity data are available. In dogs, 250 mg/kg silicate is the minimum single lethal oral dose (see: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/sodiummetasilicate.pdf).
Although silicic acid is fully assimilated and excreted by normal kidneys, evidence that silicic acid is not always well-excreted is plentiful. In carefully controlled experiments, alligators treated with silicofluoridated public water developed silicosis of the liver after fluorosilicic infusions began in Kansas City (personal communication, Dr. Albert Burgstahler) (Toxic Effects of Silicofluoridated Water in Chinchillas, Caimans, Alligators, and Rats held in Captivity, Fluoride 41:83, 2008) that was absent in alligators in the facility living in water without silicofluoride.
At the University of California, Davis, researchers now recognize that silicosis induced bone deformations occur in CA horses and may be responsible for the high incidence of racehorse breakdowns in the State (http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vorl/research_programs/musculoskeletal_disease_injuries/index.cfm). These horses typically have abnormal lung and respiration involvement which is consistent with animal studies of silicosis that always involve both lung and hepatic tissue. The source of exposure for silicon are mostly from feeds but also in CA from water treated with industrial fluorosilicic acid.
Human silicosis has historically been associated with sandblasters and miners where exposure is through long term inhalation of silica, so most postmortem studies centered on lung tissue, but in 1996 a call for investigations into hepatic disorders that are expected to accompany lung silicosis in humans was made (A M Arens, B Barr, S M Puchalski, R Poppenga, R M Kulin, J Anderson, S M Stover, Osteoporosis associated with pulmonary silicosis in an equine bone fragility syndrome, Veterinary Pathology (2011), Volume: 48, Issue: 3, Pages: 593-615; www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).
People with kidney disease on dialysis would be expected to have silicic acid excretion difficulties.Although Material Safety Data Sheets on orthosilicic acid casually indicate that there may be no known adverse effects from ingestion, there are no human studies available for lifelong orthosilicic acid assimilation from treated drinking water or as an ingestible, particularly in the infirmed. Regardless of whether for most people silicic acid ingestion may be safe and tolerated, any putative minimum requirement for daily silicon in the diet is small, and foods such as grains already provide this ingredient. Treating water intentionally with the substance is unwarranted, and our present knowledge base does not justify intentional infusions.
The reaction of aluminum in cookware with water treated with sodium fluoride has been known since 1940. Since this is due to reaction of aluminum metal with trace hydrofluoric acid (HF), the dissolution is more significant when cooking under acidic conditions such as cooking tomatoes where all the fluoride ion is protonated to HF. However, the present article here indicates that fluoridation with fluorosilicic acid treated water is expected to produce even greater amounts of dissolved aluminum ion from aluminum cookware because there is far more silicic acid in drinking water at neutral pH than there is HF.
Finally, it is ironic that the fluoride level that bathes teeth topically in saliva from that ingested from treated water, only 0.02 ppm, is argued to be an effective caries preventive, when in fact toothpaste fluoride is 75,000 times more concentrated than this. The CDC old adage, that fluoridation is a public health achievement at 1 ppm because only a ‘small’ amount of ugly dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia was thought would occur, is now known to be in error. 41% of U.S. 12-15 year olds have significant enamel fluorosis in the U.S. as of 2004. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are consuming industrial fluorides believing that ingesting fluoride ion can reduce dental caries without ill effect, but the CDC reported that systemic fluoride is unable to affect caries (CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Aug, 2001), and instead is responsible for enamel fluorosis, and saliva fluoride at only 0.02 ppm (National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) is also unable to affect teeth topically.
Medical treatments always must balance between adverse side effects and potential benefit. The long and admirable mission of the CDC is to protect the health of all Americans, and in some cases this simply means leaving citizens alone. We now have exceptional methods of reducing decay, in addition to brushing, flossing and good dietary habits, including dilute antibiotic trays fitted to teeth that eliminate caries-causing bacteria in otherwise difficult cases. The infusion of any food or nutriment, as well as any contaminants, into public water supplies is forbidden by the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act which prohibits any National requirement for any substance in water other than to sanitize the water and that the States can be no less restrictive. Vitamin C for example is an essential substance to prevent illness, scurvy, and yet it is illegal to inject vitamin C into public water supplies to treat people. Likewise, it is illegal to infuse into public water supplies any silicic acid (which is not officially a mineral nutrient, vitamin or food), either with direct intent, or intentionally but indirectly as discussed here as a byproduct from diluted industrial fluorosilicic acid.
Dr. Richard Sauerheber
(B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of CA, San Diego)
Palomar College, San Marcos, CA
December 23, 2012
Comments on Toxicologic Mechanisms of Lead, Arsenic, and Fluoride
Arsenic is a certain human carcinogen, and lead is a probable (EPA), or a reasonably anticipated to be (NTP), human carcinogen. Indeed, lead and arsenic both inhibit enzymes that synthesize and repair DNA. Arsenic and lead both incorporate into all organ systems to produce toxic effects, and both accumulate in bone and teeth. Each exhibits many distinct toxicologic features, and the sizes of these ions are much different, but both arsenic and lead as metal ions irreversibly bind sulfhydryl groups on proteins, including both structural and enzymatic proteins. Sulfhydryl groups that are affected can vary in importance depending on location and the importance of the enzyme. The EPA MCL for each metal ion has been set at 10 ppb, but this is 0.21 microMolar for arsenic and 0.05 microMolar for lead.
The two forms of inorganic arsenic, reduced (trivalent As (III)) and oxidized (pentavalent As(V)), can be absorbed, and accumulate in tissues and body fluids. Arsenite, As(III), binds with higher affinity to sulfhydryl groups. Numerous studies have shown that arsenic is cytotoxic at micromolar concentrations. Micromolar arsenic can induce chromosomal damage and inhibit DNA repair. Cells lacking telomerase are paradoxically prone to genomic instability and carcinogenesis. Studies conducted at Johns Hopkins describe arsenic as a potent inhibitor of human telomerase expression at 0.7 micromolar (50 ppb) [http://www.jci.org/articles/view/14064]. Arsenite inhibits succinate dehydrogenase at micromolar concentrations:
Lead severely inhibits creatine kinase and pyryuvate kinase
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19925858]. Lead causes neurobehavioral abnormality in children with blood levels below 50 ppb
[http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/lead/docs/lead.pdf] . Lead lines occur in bone on Xray exams in 3 year old children with 100 ppb blood lead levels. Enzymes responsible for the synthesis of blood cell hemoglobin are directly and immediately substantially inhibited by lead at only 50 ppb.
Under the Lead Copper Rule (LCR), EPA requires testing of public water systems, and if more than 10% of the samples at residences contain lead levels over 15 ppb, actions must be taken to lower these levels [http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf].
Unfortunately, the combined effects of arsenic and lead dual exposure have not been evaluated. No MCL has been developed for either substance when the other is also known to be present. The effects of lead at 10 ppb together with arsenic at 10 ppb, typical of water supplies and the EPA MCL’s for lead and arsenic separately, during lifelong exposure are unknown. Many municipal water supplies in the U.S. now contain over 10 ppb total of lead plus arsenic.
Industrial fluoride ingestion from 1 ppm treated water supplies in conjunction with fluoridated toothpaste use averages 0.21 ppm in blood and most soft tissues (National Research Council, 2006, p. 70). Fluoride accumulates in bone to thousands of mg/kg over lifelong drinking. Fluoride is also alters protein structure and is a general enzyme inhibitor, but by a mechanism entirely distinct from that for arsenic and lead. Fluoride disrupts hydrogen bonds that normally exist between water molecules, between water and biological molecules, and within individual macromolecules. Fluoride inhibits glutamine synthase, a DNA repair enzyme, at only 0.2 ppm, but unlike enzyme inhibition due to metal ions, fluoride enzyme inhibition is reversed after reduction of the fluoride concentration in the media. This is because hydrogen bonds are not actual bonds but rather are associations, regions where molecules become attracted temporarily. Hydrogen bonding is merely a dipolar interaction between polar groups where opposite charges attract and is strong enough when between hydrogen and nitrogen, oxygen or fluoride, to then be referred to as hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding determines many unique characteristics of water as the exclusive solvent forming the bulk matrix of all living organisms. The EPA MCL for fluoride is currently set at 2 ppm in drinking water without consideration of the amount of fluoride ingested from toothpaste use or from foods. Based on fluoride exposure studies reviewed by the NRC, if fluoride were not present in drinking water, then blood levels of fluoride would average approximately 0.1 ppm in the U.S. Indeed, this is a typical fluoride blood level for those residing in non-fluoridated regions (NRC).