Soulclipse

Neurotoxicity Lawsuit Threatens To End Water Fluoridation in U.S. Based On Health Studies

Director of The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), together with public health and environmental groups registered an objection with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against EPA (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). They elected to file this complaint because EPA denied the petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to ban water fluoridation!

What FAN wants to achieve with this lawsuit is to finally end the use of Flouride in the U.S. water supply, since it is a neurotoxic chemical as numerous studies have found. FAN’s attorney and adviser, Michael Connett said:

“This case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’ — meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of proof without deference to the EPA’s judgment.”

Here Is The Lawsuit Background

On November 22, 2016, a petition under provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was conducted to ask EPA to ban the use of fluoride in our drinking water. The petition was done by FAN, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Food & Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation, Organic Consumers Association, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and many other groups.

They sent more than 2500 pages of scientific documentation with all the details about the risks of adding fluoride to our drinking water. If you are interested, please read the full petition here.

They also included evidence of the levels of neurotoxin ingested by U.S. children from drinking water that contained fluoride. The documents presented to EPA include proof that ingesting fluoride has not enough benefits and poses much more of a threat to humans and other animals than it benefits them, which renders it an unnecessary chemical additive for water supplies. FAN hopes that a no biases judge will agree that the risks of having fluoride added to our drinking water are too high in comparison to the little benefits that it could have for our health.

This February 27, EPA had the following response:

“The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”

Many independent scientists agree that fluoride is a neurotoxin. And the point that EPA is missing is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what dose. EPA keeps ignoring these studies because of methodological imperfection, which is just wrong. Especially knowing the consistency of the results in all independent tests.

The EPA created the Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment, while FAN presented the EPA with 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxicity risk (e.g., reduced IQ). These studies point out that there is tremendous harm at the levels within the “accepted” ranges, set by the EPA, and that millions of U.S. children receive today.

Conclusion

It’s sad to see that the simple process of raising concerns about the EPA’s practices with fluoride and presenting scientific documents gets them flustered. They know what they are doing is wrong. However, they keep ignoring and not assessing the risks that come with adding fluoride to our drinking water supply. As a way of taking control over the water problems facing Americans today, you can get yourself a water filter such as the one here. We also encourage you to read more what Stuart Cooper, Campaign Director of Fluoride Action Network has to say about this lawsuit here.

Sources:

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/04/21/document_gw_02.pdf
http://fluoridealert.org/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/06/13/ban-artificial-water-fluoridation.aspx?
Fluoridealert.org March 17, 2017
Office of the Federal Register February 27, 2017
The Lancet 2014 March; 13(3): 330-338
fluoridealert.org Fluoride and the Brain
Fluoride October-December 2016; 49(4 pt 1): 379-400 (PDF)
Neurotoxicology and Teratology March-April 1995; 17(2): 169-177
Fluoridealert.org November 25, 2016
Environmental Health February 27, 2017 [Epub ahead of print]
Neurotoxicology and Teratology January-February 2015; 47: 96-101
Prenatal and Childhood Exposure to Fluoride and Neurodevelopment
NIH Project Reporter, Effects of Fluoride on Behavior in Genetically Diverse Mouse Models
Environmental Health Perspectives, The Impact of Prenatal Fluoride Exposure on Pubertal Onset of Children in Mexico City
Cadermos de Saude Publica January 2007; Suppl. 4 (2007): S579-587
CDC.gov, Fluoridation Statistics 2014
Fluoridealert.org, Communities That Have Rejected Fluoridation Since 2010
Image Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.