That’s when the Water Authority is planning to begin injecting fluosilicic acid into our drinking water. As a reminder, fluosilicic acid, H2SiF6 (HFSA), will be mixed at the San Diego treatment plants.
According to an article in the July 2008 Environmental Sciences & Engineering Magazine, fluosilicic acid (HFSA) is a liquid industrial waste from the super phosphate fertilizer industry.
An assay of fluosilicic acid will list trace co-contaminants of lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium and radionuclides as additional common constituents of the solution. Additionally, caustic soda (the Drano ingredient sodium hydroxide NaOH) will also be injected to prevent water pH getting too acidic.
I brought this issue before you in the May issue of the Presidio Sentinel, with a follow up in the June issue. For some of you, the start of summer meant vacation. For others, it meant time to take action, because there is little time to waste. I am sorry to say that I’ve had to become a part of this coalition because our City officials seem to be satisfied with injecting fluosilicic acid into our drinking water even though there are laws in place to keep this from happening.
The City of San Diego has a Municipal code (Section 67) enacted by the citizens in 1954 that states “it is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person, including the City of San Diego and for its elective or appointed officers or employees, to use in or add to the water supply of this City any Fluorine, Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Silico Fluoride or any Fluoride compound, or to treat such water supply with aforesaid chemicals before delivery to the consumers thereof.”
Over the last several months, we’ve received phone calls and emails from San Diegans, as well as people around the country, and Canada, who say they feel that the injection of fluosilicic acid into the public drinking water makes zero sense. And, I have come to wholeheartedly agree.
One of the people who contacted me recently happens to live in Mission Hills. Like the other advocates who want to protect one of our most valuable assets, water, she has done “extensive,” research on this subject. I will reiterate that none of us are willing to take on this issue without the facts and surety that there is something very wrong. And, I am very sorry to say, injecting fluosilicic acid into our drinking water is “terribly” wrong. Tamra Miller, the mother of two teenage daughters, knows this all too well. She has written and contacted dentists and government officials, including Councilman Kevin Faulconer. She has been articulate, offering well-researched documents.
However, thus far she has been “dismissed” with “here’s a list of people who you can talk to,” without any opportunity to have a meeting or even a discussion with Councilman Faulconer. Miller has expressed concern about how the City will monitor the intake of fluoride, “It occurs to me that by injecting our water supply with a medication that must be prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner, the City of San Diego will necessarily be acting as a drug dispensing medical provider, with somewhere between one and three million patients.
That’s a big case load.
Does the City plan to provide patient-residents with full disclosure about fluoride and the signs and symptoms of fluoride poisoning, as well as for cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic, which toxins I understand accompany fluoride injections?” As she continued, “Any physician would, by law and by virtue of the Hippocratic oath, be required to educate and appropriately inform their patients about contraindications and dosages, as well as monitoring their patients’ toleration of the prescribed drug. I believe federal drug labeling requirements also mandate warnings on the dispensing of drugs and overdose precautions.”
Miller’s concerns are valid and shared by dentists around the country and world who have also become advocates against fluosilicic acid injections into our public drinking water. Dr. Grant Layton, a San Diego dentist, has been adamant about preventing fluosilicic acid injections. He knows it doesn’t make sense. He knows there is way too much evidence that it is harmful versus beneficial to the population at large. “A tooth is made up of a beautiful crystal structure, almost like glass. Fluoride doesn’t improve the health or well being of teeth. So, why put it in our drinking water, especially, when we didn’t ask to put it in?” Layton also asked, “Why medicate the entire community, especially when we know that it is a health risk for babies and children up to age five and for other sectors of the population?”
As I refer to professionals who’ve done extensive research on this subject, one of them is Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a neurotoxicologist and former director at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In 1995, Dr. Mullenix published research showing that fluoride built up in the brains of animals when exposed to “moderate” levels.
Damage to the brain occurred and the behavior patterns of the animals was adversely effected. Offspring of pregnant animals receiving relatively low doses of fluoride showed permanent effects to the brain, which were seen as hyperactivity (ADD-like symptoms). Additionally, two new epidemiological studies, which tend to confirm fluoride’s neurotoxic effects on the brain, have shown that children exposed to higher levels of fluoride had lower IQs. The Department of Health in New Jersey also found that bone cancer in male children was between two and seven times greater in areas where water was fluoridated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers confirmed the bone cancer-causing effects of fluoride at low levels in an animal model. A new study has shown that fluoridation of water is linked to uterine cancer deaths. And, there is a whole lot more research that shows the negative effects of fluosilicic acid.
According to Dr. Hirzy, USA Senior EPA Chemist, “If this stuff (silicofluorides) gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant.” That’s amazing! In the July issue, I quoted Dr. David Kennedy, a retired dentist, who is the fluoride information officer for the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology.
He is also asking this question, “Why is the city of San Diego importing hazardous waste from China, Mexico or Florida’s phosphate fertilizer industry to add hydrofluosilicic acid contaminated with arsenic, aluminum and a potpourri of other heavy metals to our public drinking water?” As he continues, “They call it fluoride when it contains only 17 percent of that element. 83 percent is something else. In fact, you will find, should you question the contents, that they are not very happy about you asking for a current chemical analysis.” Dr. Kennedy also states that advocates for fluoridation (California dentists) are not allowed to study fluoride’s systemic effects according to the ADA because they are not within their purview as dentists.
However, as a result of the 2006 review by the National Academy of Science
that noted many injuries (endocrine and neurological) at exposure levels well below the dose an infant would receive “the ADA does now acknowledge that infants may be harmed if their parents frequently use tap water to make up powdered or reconstituted baby formula.” I have personally posed the question, shouldn’t the ADA be responsible for telling the “public at large” that this concern does exist? What I learned is that the ADA does not report to anyone.
The ADA can do whatever it wants without any recourse.
So, the battle continues, and time is running out. For those of us who have joined the anti-fluosilicic coalition, we have little time to waste. For those of you are considering joining this effort, the time is now. Please contact us at email@example.com.