|
|
|
|
Interview
with Fluoride-Foe
Dr. Robert Carton |
|
Dr. Robert Carton |
|
Andrew W. Saul Interviews EPA Dissident ROBERT J. CARTON, PhD
“EPA has more than enough evidence
to shut down fluoridation right now.” (Dr. Robert Carton) “Fluoridation,” says former EPA senior
scientist Robert J. Carton, PhD, “presents unacceptable risks to public
health, and the government cannot prove its claims of safety. It is clear
that fluoride is mutagenic, and that it may well cause cancer. EPA has
attempted to silence scientists who do not follow the party line.” ( http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000247.htm
) And with that, he is just warming up. “Fluoridation,” he adds, “constitutes
unlawful medical research. It is banned in most of Dr. Carton has considerable
experience as a risk assessment manager for the US Environmental Protection
Agency, investigating asbestos, arsenic, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorobutadiene, and, of course, cancer
incidence. Then, for ten years, Dr. Carton was with the When this man talks of
fluoridation dangers, it is time to listen. I am pleased to present the
following exclusive interview, in edited form, with this outspoken EPA
dissenter. DOCTOR
YOURSELF NEWS: Dr. Carton, I have followed, with great appreciation, your
stance against fluoridation of water for many years. My comments on
fluoridation are posted at http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoridation.html , and the Journal
of Orthomolecular Medicine published http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoride_cancer.html
. CARTON: I
enjoyed the references you sent. DY NEWS:
How long were you with EPA? CARTON:
20 years, from 1972 until 1992. I was a Risk Assessment Scientist with the
Office of Toxic Substances, and twice president of the EPA Professional
Union. DY NEWS:
How popular were you with EPA? CARTON: I
think they tried to ignore me; they considered me “small potatoes.” DY NEWS:
Were you? CARTON:
Well, at a meeting of the drinking water subcommittee of the EPA Science
Advisory Board, I basically accused EPA of scientific fraud. You can read
that presentation on the web at http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000039.htm
. When the Natural Resources Defense Council objected to EPA’s 1985 standards
(raising the amount of fluoride allowed in water), I convinced the EPA union
to file an amicus curiae brief in
support of NRDC. ( http://rvi.net/~fluoride/000052.htm
) DY NEWS:
Why? CARTON:
Because EPA did not even attempt to go through the scientific process for
determining an acceptable daily dose. They tried at great length to avoid
nailing down how much fluoride people were actually getting so they could keep
marching with the policy of keeping fluoridation going. DY NEWS:
Is this what you mean by fraud? CARTON:
In April 1985, a person writing standards for EPA actually told me, in
private, that he was lying. He said he was told to lie, and that he had to do
what he had to do to keep his job. DY NEWS:
Wow. CARTON:
That launched me. That is what got me interested. DY NEWS:
EPA’s standard is 4 mg fluoride per liter. That is about 1 mg per cup of
water. I have looked in the Physician’s
Desk Reference (PDR) and have seen that 1 mg of fluoride can be a
prescription dose. CARTON:
Exactly. DY NEWS:
That, to me, says that EPA is allowing a prescription dose of fluoride in a
single eight-ounce glass of water. And people are encouraged to drink more
than that. CARTON:
Exactly. The variation in consumption is huge. It makes no sense at all. The
US Safe Drinking Water Act’s recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
(MCLG) for fluoride is 4 mg, which is unenforceable. (MCLG is explained at
the EPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/standard/setting.html
) What is enforceable is the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). It is supposed
to be as close to the MCLG as possible, taking economics and feasibility into
account. This is a political decision, not a scientific one. For fluoride
they are totally linked together. They are both 4 mg/liter. DY NEWS:
The limit and the goal are equal? Is that unusual? CARTON:
Yes. The law says you are supposed to set the goal at the lowest level at
which effects may occur, with an adequate margin of safety as well. DY NEWS:
With public safety as their rationale, EPA has taken a hard line on
secondhand tobacco smoke. But not the same with fluoride? CARTON:
Nothing is the same with fluoride. DY NEWS:
In regards to smoking, I think very few doctors would say, “If you smoke 40
cigarettes a day, you are safe, but if you smoke 41, you have a problem.” CARTON:
Right. DY NEWS:
So, with fluoride, EPA is saying that 4.0 is OK, but 4.1 is
not. And yet there are reported dangers from fluoride at only 1 or 2
mg/liter. CARTON:
Right. The 2006 National Research Council report ( http://darwin.nap.edu/books/030910128X/html
) shows this. Artificial water fluoridation is the largest contributor to the
daily dose of fluoride received by citizens of the DY NEWS:
My dentist thinks that 1 mg/liter (1 part per million) is absolutely a good
idea to prevent tooth decay. But even he thinks that the EPA’s 4 mg/liter (4 ppm) standard is way too high, and unsafe. CARTON:
Even 1 mg/liter (1 ppm) has been shown to produce
brain changes identical to those in Alzheimer’s patients. And that is in
rats, and rats do not absorb as much as humans. That tells me that the level
that would produce those changes in humans is probably a tenth of a milligram
per liter. DY NEWS:
Dr. Carton, what level of fluoride in drinking water do you consider safe? CARTON:
Nothing. I think the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal should be zero. DY NEWS:
Let’s say the technology, the money and the will to do it were available.
Coming close, being realistic, would you agree that water fluoridation at 0.1
mg/liter is “safe”? CARTON: I
can’t say that’s safe. There is too much information showing detrimental
effects. The more you put fluoride in water, the more it gets into all food
and beverage products. DY NEWS:
How much fluoride in water is a “good idea to reduce tooth decay”? CARTON:
Zero. DY NEWS:
The public often hears that “fluoridation of water has reduced dental
cavities by up to two-thirds.” CARTON:
There is no evidence that that is true. Studies have shown no reduction in
tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated cities. DY NEWS:
Dentists I have talked with are largely unaware that even their own
profession says that systemic (ingested) fluoride does not strengthen teeth. DY NEWS:
It was the cover story of the July 2000 Journal
of the American Dental Association. DY NEWS:
So, since they still vehemently support water fluoridation, does the CARTON:
When iodine intake is inadequate, just seven-tenths of a milligram (0.7 mg)
of fluoride per day has been shown to cause detrimental effects on the
thyroid. DY NEWS:
How much of the CARTON:
Probably everybody. DY NEWS:
What kind of home water filtration removes fluoride from tap water? CARTON:
Reverse osmosis might, to some degree. Carbon filters do not. (Editor’s note: Doctor Yourself does not
recommend or endorse any manufacturer, brand or product, and this interview
may not be used by anyone for such a purpose.) DY NEWS:
Why aren’t our elected officials and the EPA looking harder at fluoride
dangers? CARTON:
Under no circumstances is the government going to change its mind on water
fluoridation. DY NEWS:
Given that, what actions do you recommend? CARTON:
Get fluoride to a public vote. Get a public referendum
on the ballot insisting that fluoride be taken out of your local water
supply. And, of course, get informed. Look at http://www.fluoridealert.org , which
I consider to be the premier source for news and information on the entire
subject of fluoride. For insights into the history of fluoride’s protected
status, I highly recommended Christopher Bryson’s book, The Fluoride Deception (2004) http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-deception.htm
(This book is reviewed, and the author
interviewed, at http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoridation.html
. Please scroll down the page about one-third.) Additionally,
the journal Fluoride is another
excellent resource. My critique of the National Toxicology Program cancer
study was a guest editorial there in 1991. ( http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000040.htmc
) Additionally, the 1998 memo I wrote to the director of the Gulf War
Research program ( http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000056.htm
) at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command might interest your
readers. His response back to me was to mind my own business. In 1998, Dr.
Bill Hirzy and I presented a paper about the
fraudulent nature of the EPA standard at the National Association of
Environmental Professionals Annual Meeting:
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000037.htm
. Hirzy’s congressional testimony is posted at http://www.fluoridealert.org/testimony.htm
. DY NEWS:
Dr. Carton, thank you for all this information. CARTON:
Thanks for this opportunity. Recommended for further reading: Cross DW,
Carton RJ. Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights. Int J Occup Environ Health.
2003 Jan-Mar;9(1):24-9.) Hileman B (1988) Fluoridation of water Chemical & Engineering
News (American Chemical Society) 66 (31) 26-42 Aug 1st. Also: http://www.fluoridation.com/calgaryh.htm
http://www.nofluoride.com and
especially http://www.nofluoride.com/scientific_studies.htm
http://www.cfsw.us/2006/05/20/thiessen-nrc-report-relevent-to-fluoridation
My
viewpoint on water fluoridation is posted at http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoridation.html
FLUORIDE
FINDER A
well-written and fluoride-skeptical article in Prevention magazine ( http://www.prevention.com/article/0,,s1-1-74-112-6959-1,00.html
) is coupled with a clickable tool to show you find how much fluoride you are
getting: http://www.prevention.com/water/fluoride_home
. In my
opinion, you might best read it now, before the Andrew Saul is the author
of the books FIRE YOUR DOCTOR! How to be
Independently Healthy (reader reviews at http://www.doctoryourself.com/review.html
) and DOCTOR YOURSELF: Natural Healing that Works. (reviewed at http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html
) For ordering information, Click Here . Interview and comments copyright
2006 and prior years by Andrew W. Saul. |
|
|
|
AN IMPORTANT NOTE: This page is not in any way offered as prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease, illness, infirmity or physical condition. Any form of self-treatment or alternative health program necessarily must involve an individual's acceptance of some risk, and no one should assume otherwise. Persons needing medical care should obtain it from a physician. Consult your doctor before making any health decision. Neither the author nor the webmaster has authorized the use of their names or the use of any material contained within in connection with the sale, promotion or advertising of any product or apparatus. Single-copy reproduction for individual, non-commercial use is permitted providing no alterations of content are made, and credit is given. |
||
|
|
|
| Home | Order my Books | About the Author | Contact Us | Webmaster | |
|
