Facts on Fluoridation from EPA Whistleblowers

by William L. Marcus, Ph.D

I would like to pass along a few tips that have gotten some responses from people who were previously pro-fluoridators. I like to use the approach that first states what everybody has agreed upon in the US, and progress to the more controversial.

William Marcus is a Senior Science Advisor with the EPA's Office of Science and Technology. In 1990, as a senior EPA toxicologist, Marcus questioned the safety of fluoride and was subsequently fired. He sued the EPA and won reinstatement - a major victory for whistleblowers.

The EPA's Fluoride Fraud

by Robert J. Carton, Ph.D

The fluoride in drinking water standard, or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL), published by EPA in the Federal Register on November 14, 1985, is a classic case of political interference with science.

The regulation is a fraudulent statement by the Federal Government that 4 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of fluoride in drinking water is safe with an adequate margin of safety. There is evidence that critical information in the scientific and technical support documents used to develop the standard was falsified by the Department of Health and Human Serivces and the EPA to protect a long-standing public health policy.

EPA professionals were never asked to conduct a thorough, independent analysis of the fluoride literature. Instead, their credentials were used to give the appearance of scientific credibility. They were used to support the predetermined conclusion that 4 mg/l of fluoride in drinking water is safe.

Ethical misconduct by EPA management included the following: EPA managers ignored the requirements of the law to protect sensitive individuals such as children, diabetics or people with kidney impairment. Contrary to law, they made the criteria for considering health data so stringent that reasonable concerns for safety were eliminated. Data showing positive correlations between fluoride exposure and genetic effects in almost all laboratory tests were discounted.

By selective use of data, they fit science to the desired outcome. They reported to the Administrator data demonstrating that dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect, but then hid this information from the public when the Administrator decided to call dental fluorosis a "cosmetic" effect.

EPA management based its standard on only one health effect: crippling skeletal fluorosis (CSF). They ignored data showing that healthy individuals were at risk of developing CSF if they happened to drink large quantities of water at the "safe" level of 4 mg/l. EPA's own data showed that some people drink as much as 5.5 liters a day. These people would receive a daily dose of 22 mg, which exceeds the dose necessary to cause CSF.

Management also relied on an April 1983 report from the Surgeon General that they knew was false. The concerns of an expert panel about the effects of fluoride on the bones of children, on the heart, for dental fluorosis and for the overall lack of scientific data on the effects of fluoride in US drinking, water were deleted from the EPA's report.

The report was submitted for public comment but was never altered to incorporate the information sent in by world-class experts. Any opnions contrary to the report were dismissed. What we have is actually a draft stamped "Final."

Objective scientific methods of data collection and analysis were avoided in favor of presenting information in a way that agreed with current policy.

Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.

In 1991, when this was written, Robert Carton was an EPA scientists and Vice-President of Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, representing 1200 EPA professionals.



Former Fan of Flouridation Now Warns of its Perils