What are the impacts of the NRC Review?

Fluoride is regulated as a drinking-water contaminant by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The chemical compound H2SiF6, known as fluorosilicic acid and by other names, is primarily a corrosive material with a pH of 1.2. and as such, the State of Utah classifies fluoride as a hazardous substance under Utah State Rule R315-2-9 (e)

Because high amounts of fluoride can be toxic and in an effort to prevent the public from being exposed to harmful levels, the EPA places a cap, or maximum contaminant level, on fluoride concentrations in drinking water. Water fluoridation guidelines were established by the Public Health Service more than 40 years ago. In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences Committee reviewed EPA's maximum contaminant levels and maximum contaminant level goals (MCL’s/MCLG’s) for fluoride and found it to be an appropriate standard until further research was completed. Now that several more studies have been done and because the Safe Drinking Water Act requires periodic reassessment of regulations, the EPA sponsored a new review by the NRC. The National Research Council (NRC) is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The NRC review lasted 3 ½ years and was released March 22, 2006.

The NAS Report states," After reviewing the collective evidence on adverse health effects associated with fluoride, our committee concluded unanimously that EPA should lower the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride." Mottling, pitting and brittleness of the teeth are evidence of over-exposure. The committee found that although fluoride increases bone density as it accumulates in bone, there is evidence that under certain conditions it can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. They reviewed the literature regarding the link between bone cancer and fluoride saying it was plausible and merited further research. There were a number of other troubling conclusions they reached in this 350 page report.

The fluoridation of both counties water supplies has been not only contentious but also expensive. In both Davis and Salt Lake Counties, there have been lawsuits. How water systems complied varies drastically. Few of the engineering firms had any prior experience with ‘fluorides’ HAZMET or OSHA requirements and as the fluoridating substance is so corrosive, many water systems had a number of problems with implementation. Several systems were well designed and there have been few problems. But in an effort to allay concerns, the Health Departments of Davis and Salt Lake Counties hired Thomas G. Reeves, formerly the National Fluoridation Engineer with the Oral Health Division of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) now a private consultant. October 13th, 2005, he presented to water operators from both counties. About the fluoridating substance he stated, “It’s a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry, okay? So when the phosphate fertilizer industry doesn’t need to produce phosphate fertilizer, guess what? You don’t get any acid produced.”

Regarding the MCL’s and the MCLG’s he said, “It was developed in the late 30’s,40’s and 50’s…and it was based on water consumption.” “This chart, 1.0 [ppm] which is the average amount, is based on two liters of water being consumed by an adult male, 155 pounds. Most males are way over that now, but that’s what it’s based on.” Further, he said, “In Canada, they’ve changed their numbers. Canada should basically be 1.2 and they were for many years. I think they’ve changed theirs to .9. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore have changed theirs to .5.” Later in the presentation Mr. Reeves said, “ If you cook water that has 1ppm fluoride, if you cook it over a long period of time…the fluoride level is going to actually increase. …you have water that is at a very high temperature for long periods of time, you can increase the fluoride content up to about 8ppm.”

In 2005, the USDA published the National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

So although no water systems fluoridate at 4ppm, the level identified in this report as causing adverse health effects, the question remains, if the fluoridated water is boiled, what are the fluoride levels, then? If the MCL and MCLG levels are based on a 155 lb man drinking two litres of water, how much fluoridated water can be safely ingested by a child, if total exposure from all sources are considered?

As a result of this review, the EPA is now charged with the responsibility of doing a risk assessment that will determine the level of natural or artificial fluorides allowed in the drinking water. That assessment will most likely, take years. And according to Mr. Reeves, “…once you put fluoride in the water, it is very, very difficult to remove, very expensive to remove. It’s never- fluorine as an element -is never found in nature because it is so reactive…. Remember one thing, the fluoride level in your drinking water doesn’t dissipate like chlorine.”