A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste

Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | March 21, 2018  

 

A mind is a terrible thing to waste*

The following is from a review of our Citizens Petition under the Toxic Control Substances Act
Available evidence suggests that the following are all associated with IQ reductions:

1. Daily fluoride doses
2. Urine fluoride levels
3. Serum fluoride levels, and
4. Dental fluorosis levels

.
The 2017 US government-funded Bashash study certainly highlighted the importance of urine fluoride levels. Note this study followed 300 mother-child pairs and found that urine fluoride levels in the mothers – corresponding to fluoride levels experienced by adults in fluoridated communities in the USA-  was associated with a 6 IQ point loss in their offspring.

Each of these four metrics of fluoride exposure provide a more direct assessment of individual fluoride exposure than water fluoride concentration and are thus more probative for risk assessment purposes.

In the study by Wang et al. the authors found a clear dose response relationship between daily fluoride dose and reduced IQ. When this data was quantified using standard techniques Hirzy et al. (2016) it showed that a dose of 1.4 mg/day lowered IQ by 5 IQ points. While the precise extent to which fluoridation is reducing IQ in the U.S. cannot yet be calculated, the dose-response data from Wang et al. (2012) (i.e. a dose of 1.4mg/day lowered IQ by 5 IQ points) using a simple linear extrapolation indicates that daily consumption of one liter of fluoridated water per day during childhood (at a recommended concentration of 0.7ppm would yield a dose of = 0.7mg F/day) would cause IQ to drop by an average of 2.5 points when compared to children with no exposure to fluoride, while consumption of half a liter per day (= 0.35 mg F/day) would cause IQ to drop by an average of 1.25 IQ points.

The Economic Cost of One IQ Point

To prevail in our TSCA lawsuit we have to show that fluoride in drinking water presents an “unreasonable neurotoxic risk” at current exposure levels. As far as the “reasonableness” discussion is concerned the EPA considers the benefits of reducing the risk with the costs of doing so. In considering these respective benefits and costs of risk reduction, EPA has stated it will take into account “the extent and magnitude of risk posed; the societal consequences of removing or restricting use of products; availability and potential hazards of substitutes, and impacts on industry, employment, and international trade. (Federal Register, Feb 27, 2017; see 8. Consequences of eliminating use of fluoridation chemicals.)

There is little question that neurotoxicity is a serious insult to health. In a nation besieged by neurological disorders of poorly understood etiology, both in young children and the elderly, minimizing exposures to known neurotoxic substances should be a public health priority.  Because of the massive extent of exposure to fluoridation chemicals in the U.S., even small effects on IQ will have very substantial economic consequences.

Studies have shown that even a loss of a single IQ point causes an average drop in lifetime earnings of $22,250 in current dollars. Since 200 million Americans now live in areas where water is fluoridated, and since virtually all Americans consume processed foods and beverages made with fluoridated water, any reduction in IQ from consumption of fluoride-treated water stands to have very large economic consequences.

In 2010, there were 74.2 million children under the age of 18 living in the U.S., of which we can estimate roughly 50 million were living in fluoridated areas. If we apply Wang’s dose-response data and assume that these 50 million children consumed between 0.5 to 1 liters of fluoridated water per day during childhood, fluoridation would have caused a loss of between 62.5 to 125 million IQ points, resulting in a total loss in lifetime earnings of between $13.9 to 27.8 trillion for this generation.


Due to the sheer number of people exposed to fluoridation chemicals, even if only sentinel or susceptible populations in fluoridated areas suffer IQ loss, the economic impacts will still be substantial. For example, even if we conservatively assume that only 1 to 5% of children in a fluoridated area suffer any IQ loss, and even if this IQ loss averaged just 1 IQ point, this would still amount to 500,000 to 2,500,000 lost IQ points, with a total loss in lifetime earnings ranging from $11.1 billion to $55.6 billion for this generation alone.

The Campaign to Warn Pregnant Women Not to Drink Fluoridated Water

The campaign is gearing up. We need as many groups and individuals from across the U.S. involved in this. We will be reporting back to you in the next bulletin on the campaign materials we are preparing (e.g. leaflets, sample letters, posters, etc).  Meanwhile, please warn any pregnant women and women of child-bearing age you know to avoid fluoridated water.

Our TSCA Lawsuit Fundraiser

You can donate in one of two ways:

• Online at our secure server.
• By check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Send your check to:
  Fluoride Action Network
  c/o Connett
  104 Walnut Street
  Binghamton NY 13905

Please stay tuned,
Paul and Ellen Connett for the FAN fundraising Team
*“A mind is a terrible thing to waste” was the slogan used in an advertising campaign launched in 1972 to encourage Americans to support the United Negro College Fund. Young & Rubicam was the ad agency.
Resources:

• The full TSCA petition submitted to EPA on Nov 22, 2016
  • A shorter 8-page summary
  • Follow the news reports here
  • The Documents submitted into the court record
  * The Timeline of the Lawsuit

See all FAN bulletins online