11 EPA Employee Unions Call For Zero Fluoride Levels; No Action Taken 3 Years Later

Bone Cancer-Fluoride Link
8-6-5

Hon. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
August 4, 2005

Dear Administrator Johnson:

We, the undersigned representatives of a majority (eleven) of EPA's employee unions, are requesting that you direct the Office of Water to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking setting the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride at zero, in accordance with Agency policy for all likely or known human carcinogens. Our request is based on the overall weight of the evidence supporting the classification of fluoride as a human carcinogen, including new information from Harvard on the link between fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma in boys that was conveyed to you in a meeting with union officials on May 4, 2005.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Crakeur]

No offense but you have provided no link to said report. Anyone could have typed that up on a PC today. I went to the EPA website and could find no such report.

reply to post by CaptGizmo

Sorry 'bout that:

www.nteu280.org...

2005 press release:

www.nteu280.org...

This will probably get chopped for excessive quoting, but I think people are more likely to read it here rather than click on a link. And it's important information from EPA scientists and researchers, not 21 year-olds who say they're healthy and their dentist recommends fluoride, so it's probably OK:

www.nteu280.org...

WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Crakeur]

Mod Note: massive cut and paste removed. click the links above to read the whole article.



[edit on 18-6-2008 by Crakeur]

Holy reactionary thread, Batman.

Seriously, though, nothing is being done because no one ever listens to the unions.

reply to post by TheComte

Wouldn't you agree that their concerns are valid and in the public interest?

Hey, I'm thrilled to know there are U.S. government employees who even think about the public!

But their bosses still don't -- what a surprise.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


I think this is probably a union vs management conflict and that they don't really care one way or the other about those issues. They just want to beat management, because that's what unions want.

But, I will agree that there is more study needed if you agree that it's not as bad as the anti-fluoridationists say it is (at recommended levels, of course).

[edit on 18-6-2008 by TheComte]

reply to post by TheComte

Wow, you're a hard-core cynic to think that everything they wrote and referenced is nothing but management/labor conflict. They even stated at the beginning that they tried to resolve their concerns internally without going public.

I see you've still got this "optimal level" notion in your head. Amazing.

Not that EPA scientists would know more than whoever planted this indestructible belief about the benefits of fluoride, but did you actually read what they said about the brain and kidney-damaging effects that were discovered after receiving the 1 ppm "optimal" amount?

Have you ever known anyone who was so stubborn that the more information they received, the less they'd accept? Just curious...

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
They even stated at the beginning that they tried to resolve their concerns internally without going public.

That's what unions do. Internally first, and if they don't get what they want they go public. This kind of scare is probably designed to swing public opinion over to their side.

Not that EPA scientists would know more than whoever planted this indestructible belief about the benefits of fluoride, but did you actually read what they said about the brain and kidney-damaging effects that were discovered after receiving the 1 ppm "optimal" amount?

Not all are scientists. Scientists, engineers, lawyers, and other employees. How many of the lawyers know what they're talking about when it comes to fluoridation? How many of the engineers, or other employees are experts in fluoridation? I'd bet that there is only a handful including the scientists.

I read what they said. It seems disturbing. But observation doesn't bear it out. Don't you think we'd see a lot of brain and kidney damage all over where there is fluoridation? Do we see that? No.

Have you ever known anyone who was so stubborn that the more information they received, the less they'd accept? Just curious...

Yes. You are just as stubborn as I am, don't you think? I give you information too. What makes your information right and mine wrong?

Originally posted by TheComte
[I read what they said. It seems disturbing. But observation doesn't bear it out. Don't you think we'd see a lot of brain and kidney damage all over where there is fluoridation? Do we see that? No.

The problem with fluoride is it's insidious long-term effects, which are numerous while effecting everyone differently.

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Have you ever known anyone who was so stubborn that the more information they received, the less they'd accept? Just curious...

Yes. You are just as stubborn as I am, don't you think? I give you information too. What makes your information right and mine wrong?

Perhaps. But the real difference is, I've researched the hell out of this subject and I know there's an enormous amount of false information out there, even by legitimate sounding national organizations like CDC, NCI, AMA, ADA, etc. You have to understand the big picture of fluoride, how it began, it's real purpose, who benefits, and the incredible financial and political powers pushing it.

Do you really think all this is about preventing tooth decay? This government, who could give a rat's @ss about anyone but themselves? There's a much darker picture, which is why you're getting such strong responses in your thread. You should pay attention when everyone is so unanimously opposed (almost). Here's a hint: you're worth a lot more to TPTB being ill and diseased than healthy. Just like war is more profitable than peace. This might sound "tin hat", but don't underestimate the powers behind this stuff. Anyway, think about it and ask yourself if it's really worth it to ingest a controversial substance just for minor dental benefits, if any.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]