Download sauerheber-to-san-diego-attorney-general-3-16-16

DR. SAUERHEBER EXPLAINS THE SCIENCE AND LAW OF FLUORIDATION
TO SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Dr. Richard Sauerheber
Palomar College
San Marcos, CA 92069
March 15, 2016
Email: [email protected]
Office of the District Attorney
330 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, and
Stephen Robinson, Chief Economic Crimes Division,
Thank you for your response to my inquiry. You are correct in stating that the EPA
formerly regulated water additives, but presently does not, and instead requested the
private organization the NSF to certify chemicals used as additives.
Unfortunately, what you missed is that the Safe Drinking Water Act defines water
additives as substances that clean, purify, or sanitize water. Fluoride does not clean or
purify water and is not a recognized water additive, although it is infused into U.S.
water supplies. The NSF 308-page document lists fluoride as either a contaminant, or
an oral ingested dental caries treatment or by nickname as an “additive.” Please
understand that the sole purpose for adding fluoride is as a putative ingestible dental
prophylactic, specifically to elevate the blood fluoride level to 0.1 ppm, as stated by CA
Department of Public Health fluoridation advocate David Nelson under oath (in: Macy
vs. Escondido, 2004, see relevant transcript of trial below).
Thus, the EPA not only avoids regulating water additives, but especially has no
authority to regulate therapeutic substances. Neither the EPA nor the NSF have
clinical staff able to monitor either the effectiveness of the treatment, the blood levels
of fluoride in consumers, or the ability to ensure that patients in kidney wards and
those with bone disease are not treated with fluoridated water. Neither agency issues
warnings for infants not to use fluoridated water, or that fluoride supplements must
be discontinued when water is fluoridated. Sadly, while the MWD Los Angeles and also
San Diego Water assume litigation liability protection from the EPA, the EPA accepts
no liability for the procedure. In fact, the Office of Water, U.S. EPA has written that
fluoridation is “the responsibility of the FDA.” But the FDA argues that fluoride is an
uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug in public water supplies that should be
regulated by the EPA, since the intentional addition of any EPA regulated contaminant
violates the SDWA.
The SDWA prohibits any National requirement for adding any substance into water
(other than additives that purify the water mentioned above). Fluoride is thus illegal to
add into water according to the SDWA. In fact, the Act was first written for the specific
purpose of halting the spread of water “fluoridation” (Graham and Morin,
http://www.whale.to/d/Graham.pdf footnote 8, page 211).
The comments parroted by the Surgeons General for the last many decades that
you cited are not legally binding. In fact, the SG's have been requesting this practice
for the entire Nation, in violation of the SDWA which forbids this from being required.
As you stated, SG’s parrot this as a great “public health achievement of the 20th
Century.” But we have been in the 21st Century for 16 years now. We are armed with
vast information on the adverse effects of lifelong consumption of fluoride water,
especially in those with kidney and bone disease, and other conditions.
The claims that the National Research Council [1] concluded that there is “no
credible evidence of harm when humans consume fluoridated water” is in error. Most
likely, the District Attorney has been provided false information. It is hoped that there
are severe penalties for submitting false information to the District Attorney’s office on
matters of such broad public importance. And we trust that you will halt further
information collection from that false source.
For example, the NRC published that fluoride levels in blood of consumers of 1 ppm
fluoride water are approximately 0.1 ppm. This blood level causes accumulation of
fluoride irreversibly into bone to thousands of ppm over lifetime consumption, which
causes formation of bone of poor quality (NRC, 2006, p. 94). Moreover, the NRC
published that thyroid stimulating hormone TSH is elevated by blood fluoride at this
level, to help minimize fluoride-induced thyroid hormone lowering (p. 232). And
parathyroid hormone along with calcitonin are elevated (pp. 250, 260) to help maintain
normal blood calcium levels in the face of the fluoride poisoning of bone. In about 10
years of fluoridated water consumption, fluoride levels in bone reach 2,000 ppm,
which exceeds the concentration in fluoride toothpaste (1,500 ppm).
This is
accompanied with bone discomfort (Table 5-7, p. 176) in a significant proportion of
people. The high incidence of hip fractures in U.S. elderly (1/3 million annually) and
the high incidence of bone replacement surgeries are obviously affected by fluoridation
of bone, since the NRC established clearly that fluoride at any concentration in bone
causes formation of bone of poor quality (p. 133).
Further, the NRC is not the only source of information on harm from water
“fluoridation.” 1 ppm levels in blood of kidney patients using 1 ppm fluoridated water
in dialysis increased morbidity, which forced the FDA to order that fluoridated water
cannot be used in kidney dialysis [2]. We also now have published studies indicating
increased incidence of ADHD in U.S. children, and hypothyroidism in the U.K. where
water is fluoridated (see FDA.gov petition FDA2007-P-0346 for detailed information).
Although we expect you to correct this through legal channels for the forced
“fluoridation” of San Diego residents, we will also heed your advice to contact the CA
Dept. of Public Health, Sacramento. With that agency being under the thumb of the
policies requested by the Oral Health Division, U.S. CDC, we do not anticipate any
action on their part to help San Diego residents on this matter, even though States
can be no less restrictive than the Federal requirements of the SDWA [2], and
fluoridation violates the FD&CA (see previous letter). We hoped that you would
recognize that whole body fluoridation of innocent consumers, being ineffective,
harmful, expensive, and illegal requires that the production of source materials must
follow Good Manufacturing Practices as stipulated in the FD&CA for supplements or
drugs, and that its dissemination for ingestion requires a prescription and warnings
that fluoride tablets (allowed but not approved by the FDA by prescription) are not to
be ingested when water is fluoridated. San Diego Water and the NSF are in violation of
all these points by obtaining, certifying, and disseminating toxic hazardous waste
fluosilicic acid as source materials for “fluoridation” in San Diego. You could be the
hero, as San Diego citizens, who voted twice against this, wait.
Thank you for your time,
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
[1] National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific
Review of EPA’s Standards, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006.
[2] Sauerheber, R., Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial
Fluorides Used in Water Fluoridation, Journal of Environmental and Public Health
439490, 2013 see: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/
Excerpt from court testimony of Dr. Nelson, DHS, in case of Macy vs. City of
Escondido:
UNEDITED REALTIME / DRAFT TRANSCRIPT OF
DAVID F. NELSON, D.D.S., M.S.
TAKEN TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004
RE:
SHIRLEY MACY, ET AL. VS. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, ET AL
....
Q: IF IT'S NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCREASING
FLUORIDE IN THE CHILD'S DIET, FOR WHAT PURPOSE, THEN,
WOULD THE ADDITION OF A FLUORIDATION CHEMICAL IN THE
WATER SUPPLY BE USED FOR?
A: TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE IN THE
CHILD'S BLOODSTREAM AND CERTAINLY THEN INTO THE SALIVA,
WHICH IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT FLUORIDE WORKS. IT HAS NO
RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD'S DIET.
Q: OKAY. INTRODUCING IT TO THE BLOODSTREAM, ARE
FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS ONLY RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN IN
NONFLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES?
A: YES.