 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Congressman Ken Calvert's Letter to the EPA Concerning
Water Fluoridation |
|
|
May 8, 2000 The Honorable Carol M. Browner Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Browner: The Committee on Science received the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) response to our letter of May 10, 1999, regarding EPA's maximum contaminant level goal MCL (G) for fluoride in drinking water and we would like to ask further questions to clarify or expand on some of EPA's responses. Similar questions are being sent to other federal government agencies. Please respond to this letter by June 1, 2000. 1. On November 18, 1998, two EPA scientists, Drs. James Murphy and William Hirzy, wrote a memorandum to Dr. Oscar Hernandez, Director of the Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) on the subject of the then pending Children's Health Test Rule. Drs. Murphy and Hirzy cited six recent studies that indicated that fluoride might pose a risk of neurotoxicity for children. They also pointed out that a Reference Dose (calculated using standard EPA methodology) and the cited studies would have a range of 0.000007 mg/kg-day to 0.003mg/kg-day. They noted that no chronic studies of any kind appear to have been conducted on hydrofluosilicic acid or its sodium salt -- which are used in around 90% of water fluoridation systems in the U.S. -- and that the potential for those substances to form complexes with heavy metals (such as lead) has not been studied. Given the extremely wide-spread exposure of millions of American children to fluoride, and in particular to hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, along with the Administration's concern for the health of children and these two scientists' positions at EPA, surely EPA has responded to their November 18, 1998, memorandum. Please provide a copy of EPA's response, and what action EPA has taken to deal with the concerns raised in the November 18, 1998, memorandum. 2. Given that normal, healthy teeth do not display fluorosis, does EPA consider the appearance of dental fluorosis as a sign of too much exposure to fluoride? If not, why not? If so, at what incidence level would EPA consider that the population is receiving too much exposure to fluoride? 3. What regulations does EPA have -- either promulgated, under development or under consideration -- to control fluoride emissions to the air, water or soil? Regarding emissions of hydrofluosilicic acid, which EPA has characterized as a water and air pollutant, how does EPA explain its willingness to allow this substance to be bled into drinking water systems (especially in the absence of any chronic toxicity studies on it) -- as long as the fluoride level does not exceed 4 mg/L? Is it EPA's policy that the "solution to pollution is dilution" as long as the pollutant is applied directly into drinking water systems and not into fresh surface water? 4. What has EPA done to investigate the charges of science fraud made in the amicus curia brief submitted by your headquarters professionals union in 1986 in the NRDC v. EPA lawsuit over drinking water standards that was filed in that year (and subsequently reiterated by Drs. Robert Carton and William Hirzy of the union in a 1998 National Association of Environmental Professionals publication)? 5. What has EPA done to investigate charges made by Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Senior Science Advisor Dr. William Marcus that data were tampered with and conclusions improperly down-graded in the National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer study on sodium fluoride? Regarding the NTP study, mandated by Congress in 1977 to specifically exclude the Public Health Service and the National Institutes of Health from involvement with it (because they would not be unbiased), how is it that EPA did not challenge the down-grading of the study conclusions? 6. What disciplinary action has been taken against the EPA employees involved in firing Dr. Marcus (and thereby incurring unwarranted expenses to the taxpayers)? What personnel actions have been taken against those involved including promotions, awards, transfers, demotions, firing, etc? 7. Fluoride is well recognized as a general enzyme poison (arising from its powerful hydrogen-bonding propensity that disrupts protein [and DNA/RNA] structures) and it displays high acute toxicity (ca. 5 mg/kg as threshold lethal dose), ranking as an acute toxicant lying between lead and arsenic. A host of chronic toxic effects of lead and arsenic are acknowledged by EPA (e.g. hematopoietic effects, cardiovascular effects, neurologic effects, carcinogenicity, etc.). The EPA view of fluoride toxicity appears to be that ingested fluoride strengthens teeth, or will kill, or will inflict skeletal fluorosis, but it has no other chronic toxic effects as its neighbors arsenic and lead do. How does EPA explain this unique toxicological behavior of fluoride, especially in light of its known effect on enzymes? 8. How many individuals in the nation does EPA estimate fall into the category depicted as "unusually susceptible" in the Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluoride, published by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry? What measures does EPA recommend for these unusually susceptible individuals who live in fluoridated communities or communities whose water contains fluoride at the MCL (G)? 9. Do you interpret Section 101(b)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 as requiring EPA to set its MCL(G)s at a level that protects all persons, including sensitive subpopulations, such as infants, children, people who drink 4 or more liters of water per day, people with allergies or hypersensitivity to fluoride, and people with renal disease? 10. Is the EPA satisfied that fluoride doses delivered to the public via drinking water under an MCL(G) of 4 milligrams/liter (mg/l) when added to the fluoride intake from dental products, pesticide residues, food and beverages will not cause adverse health effects? 11. What is the margin of safety for infants who consume drinking water containing 4 mg/l of fluoride? 12. What is the margin of safety for persons receiving kidney dialysis treatment, diabetics or those who have a hypersensitivity or allergy to fluoride who consume drinking water containing 4 mg/l of fluoride? 13. Does the incidence of dental fluorosis among at least an estimated 22% of American children indicate that, at least among these children, an overdosing is occurring? 14. What steps has the Agency taken to address the hazards identified with fluoride exposure in the following publications that appeared since the EPA reaffirmed its drinking water standards for fluoride? These publications include:
15. Please provide copies of any risk assessment
documents in EPA files that pertain to fluorine-bearing pesticides,
such as cryolite. |
Fluoride Action Network | 802-338-5577 | info@fluoridealert.org |