IEN Responds to Draft Keystone XL Supplemental EIS

Mar 6, 2013 by

Statement from the Indigenous Environmental Network

Initial Response to the U.S. Department of State Keystone XL Pipeline Draft Supplemental EIS 2013

March 6, 2013

Last Friday, March 1st, in an unexpected move, President Obama’s U.S. Department of State released its draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (this is the proposed pipeline section from the Montana/Canada border to southern Nebraska, Steele City). The report defies common sense when the U.S. Department of State says “the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands.” The report understates many of the risks the tar sands pipeline poses not only to the ecosystem, but to the human health of communities living at the source of the tar sands crude oil that will flow through the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline.

The Department of State is saying it is only a draft technical report and that they’re “not going to come out and make conclusions at this point until we engage with public and get some feedback.” Federal notification of the draft SEIS will be posted this week establishing only a 45-day public comment period.

The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) stands in support of the statement released last Friday by Chief Allan Adams, of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, Canada, whose people live downstream from the source of the toxic crude oil that will flow through this Keystone XL pipeline. Chief Adams said of the draft SEIS:

“I must stress my extreme disappointment with this report. The fact that the Keystone XL pipeline is deemed as non-consequential simply paves the way for its approval and is directly connected to the unabated expansion of Tar Sands in my peoples’ traditional lands….and the Keystone is a vital pipeline for expansion. Expansion of the tar sands means a death sentence for our way for life, destruction of eco-systems vital to the continuation of our inherent treaty rights and massive contributions to catastrophic global climate change, a fate we all share.”

For the Canadian government to state and the U.S. acceptance of the false assessment "...that implementation of the proposed Keystone XL Project in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects..." is unacceptable.

For the Canadian government to state and the U.S. acceptance of the false assessment “…that implementation of the proposed Keystone XL Project in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects…” is unacceptable.

There is substantial documentation of the devastation of the environment, ecosystem, water, air, and more recently the health of the Native people living in the national sacrifice zone of the tar sands. Evidence of rare cancers linked to petroleum contamination is on the increase. The Alberta tar sands are far away, in another country, but the Obama administration could be making a decision that can directly affect the health and future of the Dene, Cree and Metis’ First Nations people. The U.S. Department of State addresses human rights issues worldwide, however, in this report; it completely ignores its responsibility to apply U.S. policy on environmental justice and its commitment to address human rights.

The Department of State, following its pattern in previous assessments on the pipeline has not assessed adequate environmental, social, cultural impact from the framework of an environmental justice analysis. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines environmental justice as the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.”[1]

Related to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, bringing the issue of human rights and environmental injustice to the attention of President Obama is not new. Back in 2011, when President Obama and the Department of State were first considering approval of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, George Poitras, the former Chief of Mikisew Cree First Nation, from Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, Canada, sent a heartfelt message to Obama. He said:

“Your approval President Obama, of the Keystone XL Pipeline, will only compound an already dismal situation for our people who have the most at stake from this out-of-control development. Your approval will mean, with certainty that we will continue to see our waters poisoned, our lands contaminated, our skies polluted, our fish deformed, and our people die unnecessarily. Your approval will guarantee the continued daily repeated infringements on our constitutionally protected treaty rights to hunt, fish, and trap.”

As we see here in the report, environmental racism also operates in the U.S. international energy agreement it has with Canada. In Canada, the roots are the same with the same colonial system of domination, the trampling of Aboriginal treaty rights, the same economic system characterized by racial oppression, economic exploitation and devaluing human life, and the environment and nature.

This is environmental racism rearing its ugly head once again. Even though there has been some progress since the mid-1990 with America addressing environmental injustice, the draft SEIS smacks of racism at its worst. The report doesn’t address the human rights violations of the Dene, Cree and Métis that live downstream and other First Nations and local communities living in the regional area of Alberta’s tar sands industrial complex.

Section 1.7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE XL PROJECT, states in part:

“On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed Keystone XL Project. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed Keystone XL Project in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR.”

This assessment above comes from government and its agencies that continue to, pass legislation to avoid accountability for the elevated emissions and devastating health effects suffered by communities downstream of the tar sands. These are also the same governmental people who have continually denounced hundreds of scientists, armed with irrefutable evidence, that the tar sands are the most carbon intensive project on the planet and will rapidly accelerate global climate change beyond the tipping point if not stopped.

IEN rejects the conclusion of this section of the draft SEIS on the grounds that the Canadian government has misrepresented the facts. We will address this issue in our comments to be submitted during the 45-day comment period.

The numerous testimonies and statements submitted by Canadian First Nations and U.S. federally recognized Tribes, tribal grassroots and Native organizations on these issues must be referenced and taken into full consideration in the final EIS.

The lack of comprehensive consultation with Native Nations and lack of meaningful participation with indigenous traditional societies, spiritual leaders and tribal grassroots on the protection of sacred areas, and cultural and historical resources is an environmental justice and treaty right issue and is unacceptable.

Appendix E, Record of Consultation of Indian Tribes and Nations: Appendix E of this Draft SEIS the “Record of Consultation” is a table with a list of the names of the Indian Tribes and Nations who were consulted, along with columns labeled: Letters; Telephone; Emails; Faxes; and Meetings, with only dates within the respective columns and rows identified with the name of the Tribe and State. What this section, nor any other section in this Draft SEIS, does not provide, is the statements from these Indigenous and sovereign nations in opposition to the KXL and rejection of the expansion of the tar sands, of which the KXL will facilitate. http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205589.pdf

Protection of Indigenous Cultural Resources

Appendix F, Scoping Summary Report, Section 2.1.9 Cultural Resources

Number  1. Further consultation, including a tribal consultation plan, is needed and should be disclosed in the Supplemental EIS to address the presence of cultural sites and tribal members’ use of resources.

On January 25, 2013, a coalition of U.S. Native Nations, Canadian First Nations, traditional indigenous societies, spiritual leaders and tribal grassroots gathered and signed the International Treaty to Protect the Sacred from Tar Sands, including pipelines and tankers. In Article IV of this Unification Treaty, there is a bulleted item that reads:

“We mutually agree that tar sands projects present unacceptable risks to the soil, the waters, the air, sacred sites, and our ways of life including:

  • The irreparable harm to irreplaceable cultural resources, burial grounds, sacred and historic places, natural resources, and environmental resources of the central plains region which is the aboriginal homelands of many Indigenous Nations.”

Click here to Read the entire treaty 

At this January 2013 gathering held in the Ihanktowan Nakota territories in the state of South Dakota, Dakota/Nakota/Lakota representatives spoke about the U.S. Department of State not complying with Section 106 of the U.S. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Since the Department of State is the lead federal agency, they must consider all effects on cultural and historic properties in the KXL pipeline corridor before making their decision that would allow TransCanada to start digging the ground and waterways to lay pipe. During the years that IEN has been organizing on the KXL pipeline issue, talking to tribal leaders, tribal members and tribal cultural resources program staff, there have been consistency with issues of lack of capacity and not enough time allowed to, fully inventory the pipeline corridor. Along with this are concerns of failure to have full comprehensive consultation with the Tribes and meaningful participation of traditional societies, spiritual leaders, elders, and cultural knowledge keepers.

Any key objective of environmental justice methodology must evaluate cumulative disproportionate impacts to individuals, communities, and cultures not only through human health but also through natural resource quality, ecosystem health, socio-economic health and socio-cultural health. The cultural relationship between Indigenous peoples and our land is not only physical, but is also social, emotional, psychological and spiritual.

The KXL pipeline corridor throughout the prairielands of the U.S. was once all indigenous territories used for millennia by many indigenous tribes.  Despite what the draft SEIS reports, it is the opinion of many tribal cultural experts that a large percent of the pipeline corridor remains unexamined (to the standards of tribal experts) and may potentially contain important and critical cultural resources that would be disturbed in the construction of the KXL pipeline. A full comprehensive survey of the corridor and a reasonable timeline for the Tribes and indigenous cultural experts to review and evaluate all inventories is vital.

IEN supports the Native Nations and its grassroots communities and the non-Native farmers and ranchers whose private lands that this proposed pipeline will cross, who have summarily rejected the pipeline crossing their lands. IEN collectively affirms the devastating consequences of the Canadian tar sands expansion, of which the KXL will accelerate.

“There comes a time when it boils down to personal responsibility. We either look at the whole big picture to see the truth or we continue to live in the many levels of denial for what the industry is doing with our support as inactive human beings. People need to take courage and take that stand that this fossil fuel industry and the tar sands oil mine is wrong and work to shut it down before it is too late. Letting that pipeline in is not only contributing to the continuation of the tar sands oil mine, destruction of sacred water and all of life, it is actually supporting the continuation of the tar sands oil mine while it risks our sacred water here because it WILL leak and spill and when it does, it cannot be cleaned up, the technology does not exist.” Debra White Plume, Oglala Lakota, Owe Aku, a Lakota group

In conclusion, the 45-day public comment period is not enough time for the people of the land, who will be directly affected by this proposed pipeline to prepare comment. The public comments must demand more time, and require public hearings in all states that the proposed pipeline will cross- even 90 days isn’t enough time.

We must remind President Obama of his eloquent words he spoke during his Inaugural Address and in his recent State of the Union address, about the need to take action to reverse global warming. Yes, there is a link to the Canadian tar sands industrial complex and climate change.

I recall another response last Friday concerning the release of this report, by my friend Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International, based in Washington, DC. He correctly stated:

 “By absurdly concluding that the pipeline will not impact additional tar sands production, the Department of State is overlooking the fact that the pipeline is likely to trigger at least 450,000 barrels per day of additional tar sands production capacity. In addition, by dismissing emissions associated with petroleum coke produced by the diluted bitumen the pipeline will carry, the Department of State is underestimating the climate emissions of the pipeline by at least 13 percent. While State conducted a wide ranging discussion of petcoke emissions from refining tar sands crude they still dismissed the impacts these would have by making coal fired generation cheaper and dirtier globally. By dismissing petroleum coke, the Department of State is conveniently overlooking at least 5 coal plants worth of emissions. These are not rounding errors; they are huge holes that cause us to question the validity of Department of State’s analysis.”

Feb. 17th Forward on Climate March on the White House in Washington D.C. Photo Credit: Jenna Pope

Feb. 17th Forward on Climate March on the White House in Washington D.C. Photo Credit: Jenna Pope

President Obama should be bound by his words of concern about global warming and put his words into action and therefore reject the Keystone XL project. IEN, frontline communities, the First Nations from the Tar Sands Sacrifice Zone, all Native Nations and non-Native communities fighting the tar sands and its industrial complex of pipelines, tankers and polluting refineries, are standing with One Voice. We will continue to mobilize and organize calling on President Barrack Obama to reject this dangerous project and continue moving our nation toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy production.

Click here to Download this statement.

IEN Contacts:

Tom BK Goldtooth: Exec. Dir., ien@igc.org, (218)760-0442

Kandi Mossett: Native Energy and Climate, mhawea@gmail.com, (701) 214-1389

Marty Cobenais: Pipeline Organizer, martyc@ienearth.org, (218) 760-028



[1] Footnote: U.S. EPA, Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analysis. Washington, DC: EPA, 1998; Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: CEQ (December 10, 1997).

 

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

1 Comment

  1. Jen Davis

    Dear Folks of IEN,

    As a mom of an asthmatic child, I am especially appreciative of your group’s efforts to help stop our region from becoming the gateway to massive coal exports to China. I went to the south of China last year and the air was brown and sticky from ubiquitous coal-burning.

    You likely know that fluoride is released when coal is burnt, and a great number of Chinese children have been diagnosed with skeletal fluorosis and neurological damage, including lowered IQs, from coal-related fluoride over-exposure. (1)(2)

    “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” … “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.” – Phillipe Grandjean, adjunct professor, Harvard School of Public Health, commenting on the fluoride/IQ study.

    Shockingly, the number of cases of coal-burning-type skeletal fluorosis has been estimated to be 1.5 million! (1) So fluoride overexposure is a critical concern of the coal campaign.

    Are you aware that the CDC confirms that 41% of US adolescents living in fluoridated areas have dental fluorosis, a permanent staining or pitting of tooth enamel, and a sign of Fluoride OVER-exposure? (3)

    And that in 2000, the EPA Union of Scientists, (representing over 1,500 EPA scientists, engineers and other professionals), sued their own agency, calling for a MORATORIUM on water fluoridation due to numerous scientific studies pointing to serious health and environmental fluoridation consequences. (4)

    Further, the EPA lists Fluoride as a “substantially documented developmental neurotoxicant.” (5)

    Like coal fluoride, water fluoridation has been linked to a number of health problems in studies published by Harvard, the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Academy of Sciences, etc. Some of these problems are liver, cardiovascular and thyroid disorders, as well as diabetes, arthritis, brittle bones, hyperactivity and lowered IQs. (6)

    The chemicals used to fluoridate water are Silicofluorides and Hydrofluosilicic acid. The EPA scientists’ own description of these chemicals:
    91% of Americans ingesting artificially fluoridated water are consuming silicofluorides. This is a class of fluoridation chemicals that includes hydrofluosilicic acid and its salt form, sodium fluorosilicate. These chemicals are collected from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The scrubber liquors contain contaminants such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and radioactive particles are legally regulated as toxic waste, and are prohibited from direct dispersal into the environment. Upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Sodium fluoride, used in the remaining municipalities, is also an industrial waste product that contains hazardous contaminants. (4)

    In 2003, the Sierra Club of Canada’s Chinook chapter was so concerned about the levels of fluoride in the city’s waterways, it called for aldermen to impose a moratorium on fluoridation.

    “If at low levels fluoride affects aquatic life like rainbow trout, and things are cumulative up the food chain and humans are affected, why are we putting this in our water?” said Jennifer Wright, spokeswoman for the Chinook chapter of the Sierra Club of Canada.

    Wright, citing the 2002 Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines prepared by a federal-provincial committee, said fluoridation of public water supplies causes unnaturally high levels of inorganic fluorides to be released into the soil, air and water.

    “Inorganic fluorides affect basic physiological and biochemical processes of fish, plants and other aquatic organisms. Inorganic fluorides can slow growth and development, cause abnormal behaviour and lead to death,” the report said. (7)

    Having worked with various environmental groups, I know it is difficult to work on multiple campaigns in one region, but I wanted to share this information with you, hoping your powerful organinzation will weigh in on the incipient water fluoridation vote in Portland.

    Truly, the coal-fluoride issues are linked, and the long term ill effects from coal fluoride and water fluoride are twin environmental and health concerns.

    I am appending a short fact fluoridation sheet (below this letter and references) with a primary source bibliography in case you would like to pass this along to colleagues.

    Kind regards,
    Jen Davis
    Founder, We All Need Bees Coalition
    Farmers, gardeners,beekeepers, teachers, chefs and eaters
    Advocating for healthy forage and habitat for our chief pollinators: the bees
    Nativepollinatorsportland@gmail.com
    (503)234-0331

    (1) Hou, 1997; Liang et al., 1997). http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    (2)Skeletal fluorosis affects the joints as well as the bones. It is not easily recognizable till advanced stage. In its early stages, its symptoms may resemble those of arthritis. Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:433–487.
    lowered IQs: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
    (3) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
    (4) http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
    (5) http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48P%20Mundy%20TDAS.pdf
    (6) http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/
    (7) http://www.fluoridealert.org/?s=Sierra+club

    10 Critical Fluoridation Facts:

    1. 41% of US adolescents living in fluoridated areas have dental fluorosis, a permanent staining or pitting of tooth enamel, and a sign of Fluoride Over-exposure.
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm

    2. In 2000, the EPA Union of Scientists, (representing over 1,500 EPA scientists, engineers and other professionals), sued their own agency, calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation due to numerous scientific studies pointing to serious health and environmental fluoridation consequences.
    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

    3. The EPA lists Fluoride as a “substantially documented developmental neurotoxicant.”
    http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48P%20Mundy%20TDAS.pdf

    4. According to the WHO, “fluoride is in virtually all foodstuffs.” It is also in over 100 pesticides, (and therefore in residues on conventional food), in unleaded gasoline, (and a significant source of air pollution) a number of medicines, some wood preservatives, coal burning, milk, meats, sodas, wines and a number of juices. (1-7). Even the WHO admits it is impossible to control “fluoride dosage.” Thus we have the resulting fluorosis, and in tandem, long-term bio-accumulation of fluoride in bones, teeth, other body cells and as recent science demonstrates, in the pineal gland of the brain. Scientific studies by Harvard, the National Academy of Sciences, the Environmental Working Group, the World Health Organization, the EPA and many others have linked thyroid, liver, kidney, cardiovascular problems, diabetes, arthritis, brittle bones, hyperactivity and even lowered IQs with overexposure to fluoride. (8,9, 9.5)

    5. By drinking one 12 oz. glass of water (fluoridated at the rate of 0.7 ppm, the current EPA recommended MCGL) you will have consumed as much fluoride as in a pea-sized dab of fluoridated toothpaste!
    http://www.cleanwaterportland.org/blog

    In addition, the EPA states that children, because their organs are still developing, and have greater-skin-to-body-weight ratio, can absorb more contaminants through their skin while bathing than from consumption of toxins in water. Small children often take long baths. According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, “Fluoride…is rapidly absorbed following inhalation, oral and dermal (skin) exposure.” (9.6)

    6. The chemicals used to fluoridate water are Silicofluorides and Hydrofluosilicic acid. The EPA scientists’ own description of these chemicals:
    91% of Americans ingesting artificially fluoridated water are consuming silicofluorides. (10)This is a class of fluoridation chemicals that includes hydrofluosilicic acid and its salt form, sodium fluorosilicate. These chemicals are collected from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The scrubber liquors contain contaminants such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and radioactive particles (11) are legally regulated as toxic waste, and are prohibited from direct dispersal into the environment. Upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Sodium fluoride, used in the remaining municipalities, is also an industrial waste product that contains hazardous contaminants.

    7. Infants ingesting formula prepared with fluoridated water will receive 50-100 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant. A baby’s immature renal development causes them to absorb more of these chemicals, up to 90%, in their bones, teeth, cells and brains. Dr. Phillipe Grandjean, of Harvard school of Public Health, suggests that fluoride may be as neurotoxic as mercury or lead. (12,13,14)

    8. The tiny fluorine ion is too small to be captured by municipal sanitation filters. The average US citizen uses 90 gallons of water per day. Only a small fraction of this water is ingested: the rest will be flushed down the toilets, used for washing clothes, dishes, cars, etc, bathing and watering lawns and gardens. So the fluoridation chemicals which are not accumulated in our bodies, soils, plants and wildlife will be flushed into our rivers and oceans, and the bodies of aquatic life. Bees and salmon, among other wildlife, are very sensitive to fluoride. (15-18)

    9. Kentucky has fluoridated more of its water than nearly every other state, yet ranks number one in toothlessness from decay and is high in baby-bottle dental caries. And only 8 countries in the world significantly fluoridate their water, but dental health is the same or better in countries without fluoridation. (19,20)

    10. “Amidst these negative findings, the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, the American Academy of Diabetes, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Kidney Foundation, and the Society of Toxicology have discounted fluoride as a beneficial additive and no longer support its use (Kauffman, 2005). Additionally there is an ethical argument surrounding city officials adding fluoride to drinking water supplies.”
    http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Fluoride

    Jen Davis
    Founder, We All Need Bees Coalition
    Farmers, gardeners, beekeepers, teachers, chefs and eaters
    Advocating for safe forage and habitat for our chief pollinators: the bees.
    Portland, Oregon
    (503)234-0331

    (1-7) “Virtually all foodstuffs contain at least trace amounts of fluoride..”
    http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/flouride.cfm
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/deadly-risks-of-lead-free-petrol/
    F pollution:The total amounts of hydrogen fluoride released to air, surface water, under- ground injection and land in the USA during 1999 were 33 000, 7.7, 1800 and 64 tonnes, respectively. Total amounts of fluorine released to air, surface water and land were 39, 24 and 500 tonnes, respectively (US EPA, 1999).
    (10)The number of cases of coal- burning-type skeletal fluorosis has been estimated t o be 1.5 million (Hou, 1997; Liang et al., 1997). http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    (8,9)“There are few data from which to estimate total exposure to and the bioavailability of fluoride, and there are inconsistencies in reports on the characterization of its adverse effects.”
    http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/Fluoride_dose_response.pdf
    “Individuals with impaired renal function, such as those with diabetes, may be more prone to developing fluoride-related toxicological effect due to their diminished excretion of fluoride ” (Kaminsky et al., 1990; US DHHS, 1991)
    http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/sodium.f.pineal.htm
    Luke J (1997). The effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildord, UK
    Luke J (2001). Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Res. 35:125-128.
    Schlesinger ER, Overton DE, Chase HC, Cantwell KT (1956). Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study X111. Pediatric findings after ten years. J Amer Dent Assoc 52: 296-306.
    Fluoride is present in body organs, tissues and fluids.
    http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    (9.5) http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/
    “[Skeletal fluorosis] affects the joints as well as the bones. It is not easily recognizable till advanced stage. In its early stages, its symptoms may resemble those of arthritis.” : Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:433–487.
    …”our results suggest that drinking water fluoride levels over 2.0 mg/L (ppm) can cause damage to liver and kidney function in children…” Xiong X, Liu J, He W, Xia T, He P, Chen X, Yang K, Wang A. (2006). Dose-effect relationship between drinking water fluoride levels and damage to liver and kidney functions in children. Environmental Research Jul 8; [Epub ahead of print]
    Hypertension can increase the risk of stroke, heart attack, heart failure, aortic aneurysms, and peripheral arterial disease. An association between increased fluoride in ground water and increased prevalence of hypertension has been observed, especially among adult males (Amini et al., 2011).
    (9.6) Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications, EPA/600/8-9-91, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC; 1991.
    http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh-chapter07.pdf
    fluoridation health consequences:
    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
    (10)CDC (1993). Fluoridation Census 1992.
    (11)National Sanitation Foundation International. (2000) Letter from Stan Hazan, General Manager, NSF Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, to Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Committee on Science, US House of Representatives. July 7. http://www.keepersofthewell.org/product_pdfs/NSF_response.pdf
    (12)”Infants fed formula receive 50–100 times more fluoride than exclusively breast-fed infants.”
    http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    (13)Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2003). Toxicological profile for fluorides, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service
    F retention rates:(10)Fluoride crosses the placenta and is transferred from mother to fetus. Fluoride is eliminated from the body primarily in the urine. In infants, about 80–90% of a fluoride dose is retained; in adults, the corresponding figure is A approximately 60%. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    Ekstrand J, et al. (1984). Fluoride Balance Studies on Infants in a 1- ppm-Water-Fluoride Area. Caries Res. 18:87-92.
    (14) “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/features/fluoride-childrens – health-grandjean-choi.html
    (15-18)
    – Damkaer DM, and Dey DB 1989. Evidence for fluoride effects on salmon passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982-1986. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage.9:154-162.
    – Davison A. and Weinstein L. The effects of fluorides on plants. (1998) Fluorides and the Environment. Earth Island Institute. http://www.earthisland.org .
    Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/English/Html/GAAG_Fluoride.cfm
    Personal communication with Dave Paris, Manchester Water Works, NH. (January 2001) Calculation based on estimated two-liters/ person/day used for drinking and cooking.
    (17) http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_227.pdf
    (19) http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rd
    (20) WHO stats. On world carie/fluoridation/ fluoridealert.org

    Recent Harvard and World Health Organization studies have found 1.5 million Chinese Children suffer from crippling skeletal fluorosis, and many also have lowered IQs or other neurological damage, from over-exposure to fluoride released from coal-burning. The CDC admits that 41% of US adolescents have dental fluorosis, permanent dental enamel damage, from fluoride over-exposure. Are these linked? Yes.

Leave a Reply